RE Mike "
I find articles, such as the one below, tragically disinforming - as they
are of course meant to be.."

Couldn't agree Mike.
Comments (in the article) such as;
"But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the
case that  carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by
2007 the evidence  was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor
role and was not the main  cause of the recent global warming."

If GW/CC denialists or skeptics has a skerrick of evidence to support their
claims and/or theories, big oil & coal would have and still would be using it to
prove their case. But all they do is ignore the last 20 odd years of debate and
assert complete fabrications as the basis of their argument.

A prime example being;
"
3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say  that the
warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about
0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature
readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas
encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the
thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite
data  is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to
1979. NASA  reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming
trend and recent  cooling. The other three global temperature records use a
mix of satellite and  land measurements, or satellite only, and they all
show no warming since 2001  and a recent cooling."


In reality north America had its hottest temperatures on record in 2007, and
Europe had its record hottest temps in 2003.

When coming accross the 'Temperatures are falling' or 'The sun,
not GHGs is causing GW' arguments in the blogosphere, which almost
without exception cite but not reference NASA as the source of their
'Global cooling' claim. I challenge them to produce a NASA link
confirming the skeptics latest disinfo campaign, and to debunk;



  [b]Global Solar Radiation Archive[/b]

http://www.bom.gov.au/nmoc/archives/Solar/

  [b]Solar Terrestrial Activity Report[/b]

http://dxlc.com/solar/

  [b]IPS - Solar Conditions[/b]

http://www.ips.gov.au/Solar/1/5

  [b]SWAN observes fading sunspots on the back side of the Sun[/b]

http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=34215

  [b]Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth's Climate[/b]

http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/Noter/solsys99.html

  [b]Astronomy Hypertext[/b]

http://physics.gmu.edu/~jevans/astr103/CourseNotes/sun_activity.html

  [b]Today From Space: The Earth's Atmosphere:

Near Real-Time Research
Imagery[/b]http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/essd/atmosphere_today.htm



[b]Global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from
satellites[/b]http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/essd/essd_strat_temp.htm



[b]Solar activity and climate
change[/b]http://blog.greens.org.nz/index.php/2007/07/12/solar-activity-and-clim\
ate-change/

[quote]Since 1985 temperatures on Earth have risen rapidly but
solar activity has declined, as measured by sunspots or brightness. And
since 1985 cosmic rays have increased (the Earth’s magnetic field
protects us from cosmic rays and it peaked in 1987) but the temperature
has increased, whereas more cosmic rays should have resulted in a
cooling planet if the skeptics were right.

  Thus whichever skeptics theory you subscribe to, the evidence is
pointing the other way. Which isn’t to say that the sun’s activity does
not influence the climate, it does. It’s just that current warming is
not due to variable sun activity, it’s due to us releasing greenhouse
gases[/quote]


[b]Solar activity 'not the cause of global warming'
[/b]http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2753395.ece

[quote]Claims that increased solar activity is the cause of
global warming -rather than man-made greenhouse gases - have been
comprehensively disproved by a detailed study of the Sun.

  Scientists have delivered the final blow to the theory that
recent global warming can be explained by variations in the natural
cycles of the Sun - a favourite refuge for climate sceptics who dismiss
the influence of greenhouse-gas emissions.

  An analysis of the records of all of the Sun's activities over
the past few decades - such as sunspot cycles and magnetic fields -
shows that since 1985 solar activity has [u]decreased[/u]
significantly, while global warming has continued to increase.[/quote]










----- Original Message ----
From: hugh spencer <Hugh@...>
To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
Cc: ClimateChangeLinkage@yahoogroups.com;
ClimateChangeAction@...; cairns-coev@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, 21 July, 2008 6:50:56 AM
Subject: [ClimateChangeAction] Re: [energyresources] Re: The Rudd government
asked to look at 7 graphs and facts


Yes, Mike - same here - we shifted (quite suddenly) in 1999 from a fairly
well defined 3.5 meters of rainfall average (with a fairly low variability
- over the recorded period from 1940) with a well defined wet and dry
seasons (dry winters - wet summers) - to a quite erratic rainfall pattern -
varying from 2.5 to 6 meters!! - and considerably increased cloudiness. The
'trigger' appears to be associated with Cyclone Rhona (jan 1999) - a
mini-cyclone, that did quite a lot of damage locally.  - So in our
rainforest regeneration plots - we are seeing a major difference in
seedling survival - and the forest is growing very rapidly - whereas before
1999 - it was 3 steps forward and 2 steps back (we've been here on the
coastal wet tropics for 20 years). Being dependent on PV for power - it is
becoming increasingly difficult to reliably provide our energy needs
(nominally 7 KWH/day) from this source. Unfortunately - we haven't been
able to keep decent met. records (we are 'resource strangled') - so the
all-important hard data on this (other than rainfall) is missing - which is
a great pity -

I find articles, such as the one below, tragically disinforming - as they
are of course meant to be.. (and of course, characteristically they lock on
to one or two points of contention - ignoring the rest of the story
completely).

There are simple issues which we have to deal with -

1) a massive human population overshoot 3-4x increase over 100  years -
with accompanying greatly accelerated average per capita energy and
resource use.

2) massive disruption of the natural ecosystems due to our demands for food
and resources and living space (read the latest (July 21) Time Magazine
article on Florida).

3) an increasing rate of CO2 (NO2, CH3 and synthetic greenhouse gasses)
release - that is scientifically well established to be responsible for
radiation trapping, (plus the dynamics of a very complex climatic system
that we still are trying to come to grips with).

4) and we are about to experience a sudden upsurge in energy demand and CO2
release - with India and China industrialising.

5) - this is the ONLY planet we have - so screwing it up, is not an option
that is very wise

oh yes and

6) the increasing isolation of the general population from the environment
("just flick the A/C switch - and log on to youtube") - means increasingly
that we 'couldn't give a rat's' about what happens to the rest of the
planet's denizens - assuming we even know they exist (and, of course, that
we are utterly dependent on them).

It all reminds me of elder persons recanting their licentious pasts and
embracing God in their later years - except that it is curiously reversed -
as God has become the comfortable economic status quo.

read the appended and weep...

H

>
>
>Well that depends..... ..
>
>Here it rains more often in winter than ever before (when it used to
>be it wouldn't rain for 6 months as the norm).
>
>It's definitely warmer, ESPECIALLY in winter...
>
>There are still areas comprising 50% of the continent still drought
>declared... ..  where it hasn't rained substantially for between 10 and
>15 years.  Australia's largest river is still BONE DRY, even though
>irrigation has been pared to the bone.
>
>Tasmania is so dry its hydro-electric system is in shut down mode, and
>it is importing (brown coal) sourced electricity from the mainland.
>
>Mike in Australia.
>
>

No smoking hot spot

David Evans | July 18, 2008  in the Australian - -  -

I DEVOTED six years to carbon  accounting, building models for the
Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the  rocket scientist who wrote the
carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures  Australia's compliance
with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and  forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon  flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and
agricultural products, using inputs  such as climate data, plant physiology
and satellite data. I've been following  the global warming debate closely
for years. When I  started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon
emissions caused global  warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse
gas, the old ice core data, no  other suspects. The evidence was not
conclusive, but  why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed
to act quickly? Soon  government and the scientific community were working
together and lots of  science research jobs were created. We scientists had
political support, the ear  of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly
important and useful (well, I did  anyway). It was great. We were working
to save the planet. But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the
case that  carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by
2007 the evidence  was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor
role and was not the main  cause of the recent global warming. As Lord
Keynes famously said, "When the  facts change, I change my mind. What do
you do, sir?"

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global  warming and
most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most  basic
salient facts:

1. The greenhouse signature  is missing. We have been looking and measuring
for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a  different pattern of where in
the planet the warming occurs first and the most.  The signature of an
increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in  the atmosphere
over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for  decades using
radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back  the
temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot
spot. Whatsoever.
If there is no hot spot then an  increased greenhouse effect is not the
cause of global warming. So we know for  sure that carbon emissions are not
a significant cause of the global warming. If  we had found the greenhouse
signature then I would be an alarmist again.

When the signature was found to be missing in  2007 (after the latest IPCC
report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings  of the radiosonde
thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was  there but
had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same
answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.

Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore  the radiosonde
thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements,  apply a
theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to
estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we
cannot  rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd
believe anything.

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that  carbon emissions cause
significant global warming. None. There is plenty of  evidence that global
warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon  emissions should
raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but  there are no
observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a  significant
cause of the recent global warming.

3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say  that the
warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about
0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature
readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas
encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the
thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite
data  is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to
1979. NASA  reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming
trend and recent  cooling. The other three global temperature records use a
mix of satellite and  land measurements, or satellite only, and they all
show no warming since 2001  and a recent cooling.

4. The new ice cores show  that in the past six global warmings over the
past half a million years, the  temperature rises occurred on average 800
years before the accompanying rise in  atmospheric carbon. Which says
something important about which was cause and  which was effect.

None of these points are  controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with
them, though they would  dispute their relevance. The last point was known
and  past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented
the ice  cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause
global  warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced
press corps  would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned
the politician's  assertion. Until now the global warming debate has
merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we
should debate the causes of global warming. So far  that debate has just
consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of  global warming,
and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply  assert that
it is due to carbon emissions. In the  minds of the audience, the evidence
that global warming has occurred becomes  conflated with the alleged cause,
and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause  was merely asserted, not
proved. If there really was  any evidence that carbon emissions caused
global warming, don't you think we  would have heard all about it ad
nauseam by now? The  world has spent $50 billion on global warming since
1990, and we have not found  any actual evidence that carbon emissions
cause global warming. Evidence  consists of observations made by someone at
some time that supports the idea  that carbon emissions cause global
warming. Computer models and theoretical  calculations are not evidence,
they are just theory. What is going to happen over the next decade as
global  temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to
deliberately  wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the
reasons later turn  out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to
re-elect a Labor government for  a long time. When it comes to light that
the carbon scare was known to be bogus  in 2008, the ALP is going to be
regarded as criminally negligent or  ideologically stupid for not having
seen through it. And if the Liberals support  the general thrust of their
actions, they will be seen likewise.

The onus should be on those who want to change  things to provide evidence
for why the changes are necessary. The Australian  public is eventually
going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might  as well be told
before wrecking the economy.

Dr David Evans David Evans BSc,BE-EE,MA (Sydney) MS-EE,MS-Stat, PhD EE
(Stanford) was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from
1999-2005.

Interesting to say  the least.




       Start at the new Yahoo!7 for a better online experience. www.yahoo7.com.au

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yes, Mike - same here - we shifted (quite suddenly) in 1999 from a fairly
well defined 3.5 meters of rainfall average (with a fairly low variability
- over the recorded period from 1940) with a well defined wet and dry
seasons (dry winters - wet summers) - to a quite erratic rainfall pattern -
varying from 2.5 to 6 meters!! - and considerably increased cloudiness. The
'trigger' appears to be associated with Cyclone Rhona (jan 1999) - a
mini-cyclone, that did quite a lot of damage locally.  - So in our
rainforest regeneration plots - we are seeing a major difference in
seedling survival - and the forest is growing very rapidly - whereas before
1999 - it was 3 steps forward and 2 steps back (we've been here on the
coastal wet tropics for 20 years). Being dependent on PV for power - it is
becoming increasingly difficult to reliably provide our energy needs
(nominally 7 KWH/day) from this source. Unfortunately - we haven't been
able to keep decent met. records (we are 'resource strangled') - so the
all-important hard data on this (other than rainfall) is missing - which is
a great pity -

I find articles, such as the one below, tragically disinforming - as they
are of course meant to be.. (and of course, characteristically they lock on
to one or two points of contention - ignoring the rest of the story
completely).

There are simple issues which we have to deal with -

1) a massive human population overshoot 3-4x increase over 100  years -
with accompanying greatly accelerated average per capita energy and
resource use.

2) massive disruption of the natural ecosystems due to our demands for food
and resources and living space (read the latest (July 21) Time Magazine
article on Florida).

3) an increasing rate of CO2 (NO2, CH3 and synthetic greenhouse gasses)
release - that is scientifically well established to be responsible for
radiation trapping, (plus the dynamics of a very complex climatic system
that we still are trying to come to grips with).

4) and we are about to experience a sudden upsurge in energy demand and CO2
release - with India and China industrialising.

5) - this is the ONLY planet we have - so screwing it up, is not an option
that is very wise

oh yes and

6) the increasing isolation of the general population from the environment
("just flick the A/C switch - and log on to youtube") - means increasingly
that we 'couldn't give a rat's' about what happens to the rest of the
planet's denizens - assuming we even know they exist (and, of course, that
we are utterly dependent on them).


It all reminds me of elder persons recanting their licentious pasts and
embracing God in their later years - except that it is curiously reversed -
as God has become the comfortable economic status quo.

read the appended and weep...

H

>
>
>Well that depends.......
>
>Here it rains more often in winter than ever before (when it used to
>be it wouldn't rain for 6 months as the norm).
>
>It's definitely warmer, ESPECIALLY in winter...
>
>There are still areas comprising 50% of the continent still drought
>declared.....  where it hasn't rained substantially for between 10 and
>15 years.  Australia's largest river is still BONE DRY, even though
>irrigation has been pared to the bone.
>
>Tasmania is so dry its hydro-electric system is in shut down mode, and
>it is importing (brown coal) sourced electricity from the mainland.
>
>Mike in Australia.
>
>

No smoking hot spot

     David Evans | July 18, 2008  in the Australian - -  -


I DEVOTED six years to carbon  accounting, building models for the
Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the  rocket scientist who wrote the
carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures  Australia's compliance
with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and  forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon  flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and
agricultural products, using inputs  such as climate data, plant physiology
and satellite data. I've been following  the global warming debate closely
for years. When I  started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon
emissions caused global  warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse
gas, the old ice core data, no  other suspects. The evidence was not
conclusive, but  why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed
to act quickly? Soon  government and the scientific community were working
together and lots of  science research jobs were created. We scientists had
political support, the ear  of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly
important and useful (well, I did  anyway). It was great. We were working
to save the planet. But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the
case that  carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by
2007 the evidence  was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor
role and was not the main  cause of the recent global warming. As Lord
Keynes famously said, "When the  facts change, I change my mind. What do
you do, sir?"

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global  warming and
most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most  basic
salient facts:

1. The greenhouse signature  is missing. We have been looking and measuring
for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a  different pattern of where in
the planet the warming occurs first and the most.  The signature of an
increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in  the atmosphere
over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for  decades using
radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back  the
temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot
spot. Whatsoever.
If there is no hot spot then an  increased greenhouse effect is not the
cause of global warming. So we know for  sure that carbon emissions are not
a significant cause of the global warming. If  we had found the greenhouse
signature then I would be an alarmist again.

When the signature was found to be missing in  2007 (after the latest IPCC
report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings  of the radiosonde
thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was  there but
had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same
answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.

Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore  the radiosonde
thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements,  apply a
theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to
estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we
cannot  rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd
believe anything.

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that  carbon emissions cause
significant global warming. None. There is plenty of  evidence that global
warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon  emissions should
raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but  there are no
observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a  significant
cause of the recent global warming.

3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say  that the
warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about
0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature
readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas
encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the
thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite
data  is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to
1979. NASA  reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming
trend and recent  cooling. The other three global temperature records use a
mix of satellite and  land measurements, or satellite only, and they all
show no warming since 2001  and a recent cooling.

4. The new ice cores show  that in the past six global warmings over the
past half a million years, the  temperature rises occurred on average 800
years before the accompanying rise in  atmospheric carbon. Which says
something important about which was cause and  which was effect.

None of these points are  controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with
them, though they would  dispute their relevance. The last point was known
and  past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented
the ice  cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause
global  warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced
press corps  would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned
the politician's  assertion. Until now the global warming debate has
merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we
should debate the causes of global warming. So far  that debate has just
consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of  global warming,
and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply  assert that
it is due to carbon emissions. In the  minds of the audience, the evidence
that global warming has occurred becomes  conflated with the alleged cause,
and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause  was merely asserted, not
proved. If there really was  any evidence that carbon emissions caused
global warming, don't you think we  would have heard all about it ad
nauseam by now? The  world has spent $50 billion on global warming since
1990, and we have not found  any actual evidence that carbon emissions
cause global warming. Evidence  consists of observations made by someone at
some time that supports the idea  that carbon emissions cause global
warming. Computer models and theoretical  calculations are not evidence,
they are just theory. What is going to happen over the next decade as
global  temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to
deliberately  wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the
reasons later turn  out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to
re-elect a Labor government for  a long time. When it comes to light that
the carbon scare was known to be bogus  in 2008, the ALP is going to be
regarded as criminally negligent or  ideologically stupid for not having
seen through it. And if the Liberals support  the general thrust of their
actions, they will be seen likewise.

The onus should be on those who want to change  things to provide evidence
for why the changes are necessary. The Australian  public is eventually
going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might  as well be told
before wrecking the economy.

Dr David Evans David Evans BSc,BE-EE,MA (Sydney) MS-EE,MS-Stat,PhD EE
(Stanford) was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from
1999-2005.

  Interesting to say  the least.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/may/05/returnofthepopulationtimebom
b

Return of the population timebomb

It has become taboo over recent years, but population, not consumption,
really is the key to managing our use of the world's resources

John Feeney

Monday May 5, 2008

Only since 1800, in the last 0.01% of the history of Homo sapiens, has the
human population shot into the billions. Now at nearly 6.7 billion, with 9
billion looming 40 years away, few environmentalists seem to care.

Yet the population-environment link is clear. Our environmental impact, as
gauged by total resource consumption for a country or the world, is the
product of population size and the average person's consumption.

Today's crumbling environment, racked by climate change, mass extinction,
deforestation, collapsing fisheries and more is evidence our total
consumption has gone too far. We are destroying our life-support system. In
ecological terms we are in "overshoot" of Earth's "carrying capacity" for
humans, our demand exceeding the planet's absorptive and regenerative
capacities.

To avert catastrophe, we need to reduce both factors in the equation: our
numbers and per person consumption.

Or so it would seem. Ignoring that logic, most environmentalists today
avoid half the equation. An emailer's assertion was typical: "John, if
everyone on Earth just consumed less, as they do in Mexico, say, we
wouldn't have exceeded carrying capacity."

It's a simple notion: reduce per person consumption and end our
environmental problems. And it lets us sidestep the issue of population
size and growth, a subject of much concern in the 1960s and 1970s but taboo
today.

Why taboo? Much credit goes to pressure from social justice activists.
They've insisted in recent decades that any focus on numbers inevitably
violates the right of women to manage their own fertility.

China's one-child policy notwithstanding, humane, successful population
programmes in countries as varied as Thailand, Iran, and Mexico contradict
that assertion.

Nevertheless, the criticism has cowed environmentalists and NGOs which once
championed the population cause, influencing policy, pushing the subject
off the agenda, or shifting the emphasis solely to "reproductive health"
without the numbers.

Looking then for a way around the problem of growing human numbers, most
environmentalists now suggest a reduction in individual consumption is all
we need to solve our ecological problems.

Are they right? The work of the Global Footprint Network (GFN), home of the
"ecological footprint," points to the answer. Measuring consumption as the
use of biologically productive land and sea, their data shows a global
maximum sustainable footprint, at today's population, of just under 1.8
global hectares (gha) per person. Currently, by drawing down nonrenewable
resources, we're a bit over 2.2gha, overshooting Earth's limits by about
25%.

What if everyone took the emailer's advice and converged on Mexico's level
of per capita consumption? Resource use would plummet in developed
countries while rising in many of the poorest. (Surely we could not deprive
the latter of the chance to raise their standards of living?) But it
wouldn't get us to 1.8gha. At 2.6gha, Mexico's footprint is 32% too high. A
drop to the level of Botswana or Uzbekistan would put us in the right range.

But that's not low enough. We'd next have to compensate for UN projections
of 40% more humans by the middle of the century. That would mean shrinking
the global footprint to under 1.3gha, roughly the level of Guatemala or
Nigeria.

There's more. The GFN authors point out their data is conservative,
underestimating problems such as aquifer depletion and our impacts on other
species. In response, the Redefining Progress group publishes an
alternative footprint measure which has humanity not at 25%, but at 39%
overshoot. But that too, the authors concede, is an underestimate.

While in overshoot, moreover, we erode carrying capacity. Once we'd got to
some level of consumption on a par with countries living today in abject
poverty, we'd find there were fewer natural resources on which to draw than
there had been when we started.

Ultimately, there are limits to how much we can reduce per-person use of
land, water, and other resources. A purposeful drop on the part of
industrialised countries to consumption levels comparable to those of the
poorest areas in the world is not only wholly unrealistic but, at today's
population size, would not end our environmental woes. Our sheer numbers
prevent it.

We have no alternative but to return our attention to population, the other
factor in the equation. Already in overshoot, we must aim for population
stabilisation followed by a decline in human numbers worldwide.

Humane, empowering measures have documented records of success at reducing
fertility rates. Most importantly, we have to provide easy access to family
planning (pdf) options while educating parents through the media in the
benefits of smaller families and family planning. We should educate and
empower girls and women to give them options and help free them to make
decisions concerning family size. And we should end government incentives
for larger families. We must do these things internationally and
vigorously, with a keen eye toward numbers, monitoring results and making
adjustments accordingly.

The stakes are too high to waste time evading the issue. Doing so is
intellectually dishonest and a setup for global tragedy. It's time
environmentalists ended the silence on population.

* * *

This article was first published on guardian.co.uk on Monday May 05 2008.
It was last updated at 11:00 on May 05 2008.


(c) Guardian News and Media Limited 2008

>Is the picture as dismal as I've portrayed?

Peter, it's probably worse, but there is no choice. Regardless of
what other idiots are doing, we have to keep trying the best we can.
When it all falls into a heap, at least we can say it's not our fault.
:)
Bob
--------------------------------------------------
Dr Bob Rich
http://bobswriting.com
http://anxietyanddepression-help.com
http://mudsmith.net
Commit random acts of kindness
---------------------------------------------------

Yes Hugh,

It would have been the only bastion of intelligent airwave comment
we've got left - Radio National or similar from the ABC, God bless it.

I don't recall which gas was being burned, maybe methane.

Well, I do care about the future, short-term as it probably is.

I'm staggered at how quickly the planet is turning belly-up, but it's
no wonder - when we realise what Man is doing to it, and always so
greedily and recklessly.

I have a saying - If we're not Green (that is, respectful of the
Environment) then we're dead.

That's really stark, and yes, it's scary too - but it looks like it's
becoming more true every day.

I am alarmed.



--- In ClimateChangeAction@..., hugh spencer
<Hugh@...> wrote:
>
> "Peter Bright" <hobart_elf@...>
>
> wrote:
>
>
> >This week the radio told me, if I recall correctly, that each
monster
> >flare in China burns gas into the sky to 100 metres high and that
> >there's hundreds of such flares. Each flare burns enough energy in
just
> >one day to power Perth (WA) for one year. China wastes this energy
> >beacause it has no way of processing it. I must ask "Why not cap
it?"
>
> >Yesterday on TV it was stated that satellite images revealed 17,000
> >forest fires burning simultaneously in the Amazon basin. There's
huge
> >amounts of illegal logging and clearing going on there.
>
> Please correct
> >the above statistics if I've got them wrong.   It makes Uncle Joe's
> >struggle to get out of his lounge chair to switch the TV off to
conserve
> >its standby power look rather insignificant.   It seems to me that
> >nothing we do here in Ausralia will have much effect on what
reckless
> >countries elsewhere are doing.   Is the picture as dismal as I've
> >portrayed?
> >
> >
>
> So what program was that??? - Radio national???   - what are the
Chinese
> flaring - propane or methane?? - either way they could compress and
store.
> How many flares?? - it is really scarey.
>
> Remember - the short term is all that counts - who gives a damn
about the
> future...
>
> H
>

"Peter Bright" <hobart_elf@...>

wrote:


>This week the radio told me, if I recall correctly, that each monster
>flare in China burns gas into the sky to 100 metres high and that
>there's hundreds of such flares. Each flare burns enough energy in just
>one day to power Perth (WA) for one year. China wastes this energy
>beacause it has no way of processing it. I must ask "Why not cap it?"

>Yesterday on TV it was stated that satellite images revealed 17,000
>forest fires burning simultaneously in the Amazon basin. There's huge
>amounts of illegal logging and clearing going on there.

Please correct
>the above statistics if I've got them wrong.   It makes Uncle Joe's
>struggle to get out of his lounge chair to switch the TV off to conserve
>its standby power look rather insignificant.   It seems to me that
>nothing we do here in Ausralia will have much effect on what reckless
>countries elsewhere are doing.   Is the picture as dismal as I've
>portrayed?
>
>

So what program was that??? - Radio national???   - what are the Chinese
flaring - propane or methane?? - either way they could compress and store.
How many flares?? - it is really scarey.

Remember - the short term is all that counts - who gives a damn about the
future...

H

This week the radio told me, if I recall correctly, that each monster
flare in China burns gas into the sky to 100 metres high and that
there's hundreds of such flares. Each flare burns enough energy in just
one day to power Perth (WA) for one year. China wastes this energy
beacause it has no way of processing it. I must ask "Why not cap it?"
Yesterday on TV it was stated that satellite images revealed 17,000
forest fires burning simultaneously in the Amazon basin. There's huge
amounts of illegal logging and clearing going on there.   Please correct
the above statistics if I've got them wrong.   It makes Uncle Joe's
struggle to get out of his lounge chair to switch the TV off to conserve
its standby power look rather insignificant.   It seems to me that
nothing we do here in Ausralia will have much effect on what reckless
countries elsewhere are doing.   Is the picture as dismal as I've
portrayed?


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

By Susan Austin

Tasmania, Australia -- It’s easy to get confused about the issue of
forests and climate change. Climate scientists say that preserving our
forests is a quick, easy and cheap way to prevent further global
warming, and Australia’s previous federal government allocated A$200
million towards preserving forests in South-East Asia. Yet both the
federal government and the Tasmanian state government are overseeing the
continuing destruction of Tasmania’s old-growth forests to feed a
profitable wood-chip export industry and a soon-to-be-built pulp mill.
And what’s more, they say that the industry is carbon-positive and
sustainable. What’s really going on?

Full article http://links.org.au/node/522

Subscribe free to /Links - International Journal of Socialist Renewal/ -
at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/21066/?nlid=1207

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/21072/?nlid=1205

Greetings Bob,   Solar-derived energy has unsurpassable advantages like
(a) being free and (b) with free delivery and (c) being readily
available in useable amounts and (d) being pure Green and (e) being
pollution-free and (f) having no transportation losses .. and so on.
Does any other power source have these merits?   It really appears the
way to go. The average suburban rooftop and plot has quite enough
collecting area to run the usual home, and much more. How best to store
each day's insolation provides food for thought. I still favour
flywheels for this task.    The current catch (!) is in the cost of
solar arrays. Silicon solar cells are still dreadfully expensive despite
the world's abundance of silicon - and I can't help wondering if a
better material will be discovered - or invented.   As always,
huge-scale mass production will bring the price way down. I'd like to
see Australia as supplier to the world.   Peter
--- In ClimateChangeAction@..., Dr Bob Rich <bobrich@...>
wrote:
>
> My number 1 preference is the solar city: every north-facing roof (in
> the Southern Hemisphere), and every north wall of a high-rise could
> be a solar collector. Current technology includes flexible solar
> panels that can be bonded to roofing materials, eliminating the need
> for an aluminium frame etc., and there are solar-collecting windows.
> Each suburban block and city building would have a large interactive
> inverter. This would eliminate the need for peak load power stations
> (which is why it won't happen: that would cut down the need for coal
> to a small fraction, and the coal industry needs MONEY!).
> However, I don't like anything made in China. Go to http://
> mudsmith.net/bobbing.html#human to see several articles about the
> reason.
> :)
> Bob
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> Dr Bob Rich
> http://bobswriting.com
> http://anxietyanddepression-help.com
> http://mudsmith.net
> Commit random acts of kindness
> ---------------------------------------------------
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

My number 1 preference is the solar city: every north-facing roof (in
the Southern Hemisphere), and every north wall of a high-rise could
be a solar collector. Current technology includes flexible solar
panels that can be bonded to roofing materials, eliminating the need
for an aluminium frame etc., and there are solar-collecting windows.
Each suburban block and city building would have a large interactive
inverter. This would eliminate the need for peak load power stations
(which is why it won't happen: that would cut down the need for coal
to a small fraction, and the coal industry needs MONEY!).
	 However, I don't like anything made in China. Go to http://
mudsmith.net/bobbing.html#human to see several articles about the
reason.
:)
Bob

--------------------------------------------------
Dr Bob Rich
http://bobswriting.com
http://anxietyanddepression-help.com
http://mudsmith.net
Commit random acts of kindness
---------------------------------------------------

By *John Bellamy Foster*, *Brett Clark* and *Richard York*

* * *

The July-August 2008 (Volume 60, Number 3) of the influential US
socialist journal /Monthly Review /is a special issue on ``Ecology: The
Moment of Truth”, edited by Brett Clark, John Bellamy Foster and Richard
York. The issue is devoted to planetary environmental emergency. It is
essential reading for all socialists and environmentalists. With
permission from /Monthly Review/, /Links International Journal of
Socialist Renewal/ here posts the introduction by the editors, and
urges/ Links'/ readers to purchase the issue and/or subscribe to
/Monthly Review/.

* * *

It is impossible to exaggerate the environmental problem facing humanity
in the twenty-first century. Nearly fifteen years ago one of us
observed: “We have only four decades left in which to gain control over
our major environmental problems if we are to avoid irreversible
ecological decline.”*1* Today, with a quarter-century still remaining in
this projected time line, it appears to have been too optimistic.
Available evidence now strongly suggests that under a regime of business
as usual we could be facing an irrevocable “tipping point” with respect
to climate change within a mere decade.*2* Other crises such as species
extinction (percentages of bird, mammal, and fish species “vulnerable or
in immediate danger of extinction” are “now measured in double
digits”);*3* the rapid depletion of the oceans’ bounty; desertification;
deforestation; air pollution; water shortages/pollution; soil
degradation; the imminent peaking of world oil production (creating new
geopolitical tensions); and a chronic world food crisis—all point to the
fact that the planet as we know it and its ecosystems are stretched to
the breaking point. The moment of truth for the earth and human
civilization has arrived.

Full article http://links.org.au/node/518

Subscribe free to /Links - International Journal of Socialist Renewal/ -
at http://www.feedblitz.com/f/?Sub=343373

Hi Bob,   It's really good to be reminded of your long-term enthusiasm
for flywheels. Do you think this is what we should all be pushing for,
or is there something better? I've abandoned my short-lived faith in
solar-hydrogen.    I relish the notion of on-site energy accumulation
and its processing thereby making every home energy-independent. Just
ponder the benefits: No blackouts! Free energy from the sun! Virtually
no maintenance! Regulated output voltage! Virtually no line losses! No
unsightly power lines! Golly Bob, it really seems the way to go.    I
don't think you need overmuch worry about shattered flywheels. The
physics of the construction materials would be well known and if each
home's sole flywheel is securely pitted under the backyard's surface, or
in a concrete bunker somewhere on the property and preferably
underground, then high-speed disentegration, although it would be a
shattering experience for the flywheel, would hurt nobody. There would
be a bit of a mess of course, but it would be confined to a few cubic
metres. The energy nowadays is not so much stored in the flywheel's
mass, but in its rotational velocity.   We have agreed that the initial
capital cost for each home installation would be high, but this can
surely be brought way, way down through mass production. This mass
production would perhaps most economically occur in China.    I imagine
that few families could afford the initial cost but I suggest that this
could be handled by government subsidies, perhaps of enormous magnitude
- but with an keen and very realistic eye on future savings. After all,
there would be huge reductions in power distribution costs and
maintenance and virtually the end of power wastage in heating the air
surrounding thousands of kilometres of power lines because of line
losses.    I am very excited by this opportunity and I invite those far
more learned than I to offer their criticisms. I feel that the sooner we
can accept (or reject) this concept, the better.    Best wishes,   Peter
Bright Glenorchy Tasmania
--- In ClimateChangeAction@..., Dr Bob Rich <bobrich@...>
wrote:
>
> I've been enthusiastic about flywheels for a long time. With magnetic
> bearings, in an evacuated chamber, you are right, losses are
> negligible. Of course, there are inefficiencies at input and output,
> but much less than for any other storage system. As you say, initial
> cost is high.
> My only worry would be in an earthquake-prone area. Damage could have
> horrendous effects.
> :)
> Bob
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> Dr Bob Rich
> http://bobswriting.com
> http://anxietyanddepression-help.com
> http://mudsmith.net
> Commit random acts of kindness
> ---------------------------------------------------
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I've been enthusiastic about flywheels for a long time. With magnetic
bearings, in an evacuated chamber, you are right, losses are
negligible. Of course, there are inefficiencies at input and output,
but much less than for any other storage system. As you say, initial
cost is high.
My only worry would be in an earthquake-prone area. Damage could have
horrendous effects.
:)
Bob

--------------------------------------------------
Dr Bob Rich
http://bobswriting.com
http://anxietyanddepression-help.com
http://mudsmith.net
Commit random acts of kindness
---------------------------------------------------

Innovation fuels solar power
drivehttp://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/07/11/innovation_fuels_solar\
_power_drive/?page=full




----- Original Message ----
From: Peter Bright <hobart_elf@...>
To: ClimateChangeAction@...
Sent: Saturday, 12 July, 2008 3:16:33 AM
Subject: [ClimateChangeAction] Solar dyes give a guiding light


http://news. bbc.co.uk/ 2/hi/technology/ 7501476.stm




       Start at the new Yahoo!7 for a better online experience. www.yahoo7.com.au

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

i note with suspicion the presence of one "Julien" ... and wish him
well in this campaign :-)
Sending warm wishes to the freezing activists.
http://www.greenpeace.org.au/blog/energyrevolution/
In solidarity!
Anne

Flywheels are rarely in the news yet this simple energy-storage device
seems to me to have enormous potential if the cost can be reduced, for
example through the economies of scale. Flywheel technology has vastly
improved in recent years and with friction-free bearings their
efficiency is very high.

I envisage every home having a flywheel bolted, for example, to the
garage floor's concrete underside, or maybe in a waterproof concrete pit
under the backyard flowerbed.

I suggest that suitably-sized photovoltaic arrays on the roof will
supply energy during the daylight hours to generally increase the
flywheel's velocity, with domestic night loadings reducing that velocity
when there's little or no insolation. Subject to verification, I believe
a week's energy storage is feasible. The loadings on the community
distribution grid would much reduce.

The flywheel is not fussy about the sometimes irregular manner (due to
clouds for example) in which electricity ramps up its speed, and due to
its colossal inertia it's not upset by sudden loadings such as when a
home heater is switched on or when an electric welder is used. The
flywheel has transient-load capability.

There are several major advantages in what appears to me a most
efficient system. Firstly, the input energy costs nothing. Secondly,
each home has stand-alone independence. Thirdly, the losses are
negligible as there's virtually no line-loss.

The initial cost of installation would be high, but maybe for the next
20 years there's no other expenses maintaining the solar array -
although I don't know how long flywheels can be expected to last before
replacement or maintenance becomes necessary.

In the old days flywheels were massive and rotated slowly. Nowadays with
the advent of tough composite materials their speed of rotation is much
higher - and therein lies a mammoth advantage.

The energy storage capacity of a flywheel is proportional to its mass
(as well as its shape) which is just what we'd intuitively expect. What
we would not ordinarily expect however, is that its energy-storage
capability is proportional to the square of its rotational velocity.
There's a square-law operating here and that often means a huge benefit
may be obtained. Today's fywheels can spin at 100,000 revolutions per
minute.

If interested persons want to research this topic I suggest that
inserting the words "Physics of Flywheels" (or some variation of this)
instead of just "Flywheels" will reduce the incidence of responses from
suppliers selling flywheels for cars.

Comment is invited.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7501476.stm

It's not about feeling better. It's about being factual. And the fact is you had
your Amps and Watts mixed up Bob. Have a look at an electricity bill if you
don't get it. They charge for Watts consumed not Amps. And as I keep pointing
out, Volts [1.7 of] are the measurement of electrical force determining the
minimum requirement for splitting hydrogen and oxygen. So it seems to me the
"confusion and ignorance" is yours.



----- Original Message ----
From: Dr Bob Rich <bobrich@...>
To: ClimateChangeAction@...
Sent: Thursday, 10 July, 2008 10:08:08 AM
Subject: [ClimateChangeAction] Re: Is solar hydrogen feasible?


>Bob doesn't like volts for some reason.

If that makes you feel better...
I have nothing against volts, only against confusion and ignorance.

:)
Bob

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --
Dr Bob Rich
http://bobswriting. com
http://anxietyandde pression- help.com
http://mudsmith. net
Commit random acts of kindness
------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ---




       Start at the new Yahoo!7 for a better online experience. www.yahoo7.com.au

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>Bob doesn't like volts for some reason.

If that makes you feel better...
I have nothing against volts, only against confusion and ignorance.

:)
Bob

--------------------------------------------------
Dr Bob Rich
http://bobswriting.com
http://anxietyanddepression-help.com
http://mudsmith.net
Commit random acts of kindness
---------------------------------------------------

Thankyou Greg,   For alerting me to the writer's bias.   Peter
--- In ClimateChangeAction@..., greg hopwood
<ghoppy9@...> wrote:
>
> I've heard this argument before, except usually the complaint is watts
> rather than volts are the measure to use, and it always omits that
> energy input for contemporary rivals is greater.
> Bob doesn't like volts for some reason.
>
> Amps = Watts X Volts
>
> Amps are how many electrons flow past a certain point per second.
Volts
> is a measure of how much force that each electron is under. Think of
> water in a hose. A litre a minute (think amps) just dribbles out if it
> is under low pressure (think voltage). But if you restrict the end of
> the hose, letting the pressure build up, the water can have more power
> (like watts), even though it is still only one litre a minute. In fact
> the power can grow enormous as the pressure builds, to the point that
a
> water knife can cut a sheet of glass. In the same manner as the
voltage
> is increased a small amount of current can turn into a lot of watts.
>
> A 400 milliamp (mA) solar panel costing about $90 puts out roughly 15
volts sustaining 6 Watts.
> So even solar voltaics generally considered as lacking in electrical
> force [volts] and only generating mA, is capable of supplying current
> for electrolysis of water (preferably hot brine) to split hydrogen and
> oxygen.
> Grid supplied electricity to refineries is 415 volts at 30 amp.
> I'd like to see someone try to thermally crack crude oil into petrol
(@ 900oC) or diesel (@ 600oC) with some solar panels.
> No matter how you measure the current, amps, watts or volts for
> hydrogen extraction (volts being the critical factor determining the
> minimum requirement), the argument that the process is energy
intensive
> is ludicrous when compared to production of fossil or biologically
> sourced hydrocarbon motor fuels.
>
> As for storage of hydrogen in vehicles, liquified is still the most
> common, but pelletised metal hydrides in the cylinder allows greater
> storing capacity and abates possibility of gas bleves.
> The argument that hydrogen is not an energy/fuel source but only a
> carrier of energy, is completely irrelevant to the hydrogen as a motor
> fuel issue. It's like saying crude oil is not a fuel itself but only a
> carrier of fuels.
>
> I was NOT "impressed by its accuracy and thoroughness" of the article
because I
> found such qualities absent. IIMO it was full of deliberate
> deceptions/falsehoods and old assumptions which have been proven wrong
> by the various industry players currently developing hydrogen
vehicles.
> Generally quite typical of Big Oil sponsored articles, except in this
> case Robert Zubrin is moonlighting for the ethanol industry.
> This John McCain supporter who's talked about bombing Saudi Arabia,
> clearly has alterior motives when dismissing hydrogen as motor fuel,
> and disputing the global food crisis resulted from biofuel production
.
> I think he should go back to his Mars collonisation plans, because he
certainly can't be relied on for an honest appraisal of motor fuel
production.
>
> The case for more biofuel
>
> By Robert Zubrin, mcclatchy-tribune news
> Monday, March 10, 2008
>
http://www.southernillinoisan.com/articles/2008/03/11/opinions/guest_col\
umns/23664158.txt
>
> American Biofuels Council
> http://www.americanbiofuelscouncil.com/contact_us
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Peter Bright hobart_elf@...
> To: ClimateChangeAction@...
> Sent: Wednesday, 9 July, 2008 12:44:37 AM
> Subject: [ClimateChangeAction] Re: Is solar hydrogen feasible?
>
>
> Thankyou Bob,
>
> This comment of yours sums your view nicely:
>
> " .. I have read the article, and am impressed by its accuracy and
> thoroughness .. "
>
> It's the sort of evaluation I was hoping for.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Peter Bright
> Glenorchy
> Tasmania
>
> --- In ClimateChangeAction @yahoogroups. com.au, Dr Bob Rich
> bobrich@ > wrote:
> >
> > >Spliting hydrogen & oxygen from water requires a minmum of 1.7
> > volts input, with a return of 1.23 volts.Thus 0.47 volts consumed.
> >
> > I am not just nitpicking here. But this comment is like a surgeon
> > using scissors when a scalpel is needed. I wouldn't go to such a
> > surgeon.
> > A volt not a measure of anything that can be consumed. That's
> amps,
> > which is a measure of current, or watts, which is power (A*V).
> Think
> > of a river. Amps are the volume of water passing any mark at any
> > time. Volts are the slope of the river. Watts is the total push
> this
> > amount of water will be able to exert on an obstacle, given the
> slope.
> > I have read the article, and am impressed by its accuracy
> and
> > thoroughness. It expresses all my reservations about gaseous
> hydrogen
> > as an energy storing mechanism (it is not a source, but a sort of
> a
> > battery). My only disagreement with the writer is his approval of
> > fuel alcohol. No amount of fuel alcohol can do more than dent the
> > problem, and its generation will inevitably cause food shortages
> by
> > taking up land. Some can be generated from agricultural wastes,
> but
> > only by using farming practices that mine the soil and use
> artificial
> > fertiliser. But artificial fertilisers are heavily sourced from
> > fossil fuels. Those 'agricultural wastes' should be returned to
> the
> > soil to feed it.
> > The only solution is to end humanity's addiction to moving
> things
> > and people around.
> > :(
> > Bob
> >
> > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --
> > Dr Bob Rich
> > http://bobswriting. com
> > http://anxietyandde pression- help.com
> > http://mudsmith. net
> > Commit random acts of kindness
> > ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ---
> >
>
>
>
>
> Start at the new Yahoo!7 for a better online experience.
www.yahoo7.com.au
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I've heard this argument before, except usually the complaint is watts
rather than volts are the measure to use, and it always omits that
energy input for contemporary rivals is greater.
Bob doesn't like volts for some reason.

Amps = Watts X Volts

Amps are how many electrons flow past a certain point per second. Volts
is a measure of how much force that each electron is under. Think of
water in a hose. A litre a minute (think amps) just dribbles out if it
is under low pressure (think voltage). But if you restrict the end of
the hose, letting the pressure build up, the water can have more power
(like watts), even though it is still only one litre a minute. In fact
the power can grow enormous as the pressure builds, to the point that a
water knife can cut a sheet of glass. In the same manner as the voltage
is increased a small amount of current can turn into a lot of watts.

A 400 milliamp (mA) solar panel costing about $90 puts out roughly 15 volts
sustaining 6 Watts.
So even solar voltaics generally considered as lacking in electrical
force [volts] and only generating mA, is capable of supplying current
for electrolysis of water (preferably hot brine) to split hydrogen and
oxygen.
Grid supplied electricity to refineries is 415 volts at 30 amp.
I'd like to see someone try to thermally crack crude oil into petrol (@ 900oC)
or diesel (@ 600oC) with some solar panels.
No matter how you measure the current, amps, watts or volts for
hydrogen extraction (volts being the critical factor determining the
minimum requirement), the argument that the process is energy intensive
is ludicrous when compared to production of fossil or biologically
sourced hydrocarbon motor fuels.

As for storage of hydrogen in vehicles, liquified is still the most
common, but pelletised metal hydrides in the cylinder allows greater
storing capacity and abates possibility of gas bleves.
The argument that hydrogen is not an energy/fuel source but only a
carrier of energy, is completely irrelevant to the hydrogen as a motor
fuel issue. It's like saying crude oil is not a fuel itself but only a
carrier of fuels.

I was NOT "impressed by its accuracy and thoroughness" of the article because I
found such qualities absent. IIMO it was full of deliberate
deceptions/falsehoods and old assumptions which have been proven wrong
by the various industry players currently developing hydrogen vehicles.
Generally quite typical of Big Oil sponsored articles, except in this
case Robert Zubrin is moonlighting for the ethanol industry.
This John McCain supporter who's talked about bombing Saudi Arabia,
clearly has alterior motives when dismissing hydrogen as motor fuel,
and disputing the global food crisis resulted from biofuel production .
I think he should go back to his Mars collonisation plans, because he certainly
can't be relied on for an honest appraisal of motor fuel production.

The case for more biofuel

By Robert Zubrin, mcclatchy-tribune news
Monday, March 10, 2008
http://www.southernillinoisan.com/articles/2008/03/11/opinions/guest_columns/236\
64158.txt

American Biofuels Council
http://www.americanbiofuelscouncil.com/contact_us


----- Original Message ----
From: Peter Bright <hobart_elf@...>
To: ClimateChangeAction@...
Sent: Wednesday, 9 July, 2008 12:44:37 AM
Subject: [ClimateChangeAction] Re: Is solar hydrogen feasible?


Thankyou Bob,

This comment of yours sums your view nicely:

" .. I have read the article, and am impressed by its accuracy and
thoroughness .. "

It's the sort of evaluation I was hoping for.

Best wishes,

Peter Bright
Glenorchy
Tasmania

--- In ClimateChangeAction @yahoogroups. com.au, Dr Bob Rich
<bobrich@... > wrote:
>
>  >Spliting hydrogen & oxygen from water requires a minmum of 1.7
> volts input, with a return of 1.23 volts.Thus 0.47 volts consumed.
>
> I am not just nitpicking here. But this comment is like a surgeon
> using scissors when a scalpel is needed. I wouldn't go to such a
> surgeon.
>  A volt not a measure of anything that can be consumed. That's
amps,
> which is a measure of current, or watts, which is power (A*V).
Think
> of a river. Amps are the volume of water passing any mark at any
> time. Volts are the slope of the river. Watts is the total push
this
> amount of water will be able to exert on an obstacle, given the
slope.
>  I have read the article, and am impressed by its accuracy
and
> thoroughness. It expresses all my reservations about gaseous
hydrogen
> as an energy storing mechanism (it is not a source, but a sort of
a
> battery). My only disagreement with the writer is his approval of
> fuel alcohol. No amount of fuel alcohol can do more than dent the
> problem, and its generation will inevitably cause food shortages
by
> taking up land. Some can be generated from agricultural wastes,
but
> only by using farming practices that mine the soil and use
artificial
> fertiliser. But artificial fertilisers are heavily sourced from
> fossil fuels. Those 'agricultural wastes' should be returned to
the
> soil to feed it.
>  The only solution is to end humanity's addiction to moving
things
> and people around.
> :(
> Bob
>
> ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --
> Dr Bob Rich
> http://bobswriting. com
> http://anxietyandde pression- help.com
> http://mudsmith. net
> Commit random acts of kindness
> ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- ---
>




       Start at the new Yahoo!7 for a better online experience. www.yahoo7.com.au

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thankyou Bob,

This comment of yours sums your view nicely:

" .. I have read the article, and am impressed by its accuracy and
thoroughness .. "

It's the sort of evaluation I was hoping for.

Best wishes,

Peter Bright
Glenorchy
Tasmania






--- In ClimateChangeAction@..., Dr Bob Rich
<bobrich@...> wrote:
>
>  >Spliting hydrogen & oxygen from water requires a minmum of 1.7
> volts input, with a return of 1.23 volts.Thus 0.47 volts consumed.
>
> I am not just nitpicking here. But this comment is like a surgeon
> using scissors when a scalpel is needed. I wouldn't go to such a
> surgeon.
>  A volt not a measure of anything that can be consumed. That's
amps,
> which is a measure of current, or watts, which is power (A*V).
Think
> of a river. Amps are the volume of water passing any mark at any
> time. Volts are the slope of the river. Watts is the total push
this
> amount of water will be able to exert on an obstacle, given the
slope.
>  I have read the article, and am impressed by its accuracy
and
> thoroughness. It expresses all my reservations about gaseous
hydrogen
> as an energy storing mechanism (it is not a source, but a sort of
a
> battery). My only disagreement with the writer is his approval of
> fuel alcohol. No amount of fuel alcohol can do more than dent the
> problem, and its generation will inevitably cause food shortages
by
> taking up land. Some can be generated from agricultural wastes,
but
> only by using farming practices that mine the soil and use
artificial
> fertiliser. But artificial fertilisers are heavily sourced from
> fossil fuels. Those 'agricultural wastes' should be returned to
the
> soil to feed it.
>  The only solution is to end humanity's addiction to moving
things
> and people around.
> :(
> Bob
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> Dr Bob Rich
> http://bobswriting.com
> http://anxietyanddepression-help.com
> http://mudsmith.net
> Commit random acts of kindness
> ---------------------------------------------------
>

>Spliting hydrogen & oxygen from water requires a minmum of 1.7
volts input, with a return of 1.23 volts.Thus 0.47 volts consumed.

I am not just nitpicking here. But this comment is like a surgeon
using scissors when a scalpel is needed. I wouldn't go to such a
surgeon.
	 A volt not a measure of anything that can be consumed. That's amps,
which is a measure of current, or watts, which is power (A*V). Think
of a river. Amps are the volume of water passing any mark at any
time. Volts are the slope of the river. Watts is the total push this
amount of water will be able to exert on an obstacle, given the slope.
	 I have read the article, and am impressed by its accuracy and
thoroughness. It expresses all my reservations about gaseous hydrogen
as an energy storing mechanism (it is not a source, but a sort of a
battery). My only disagreement with the writer is his approval of
fuel alcohol. No amount of fuel alcohol can do more than dent the
problem, and its generation will inevitably cause food shortages by
taking up land. Some can be generated from agricultural wastes, but
only by using farming practices that mine the soil and use artificial
fertiliser. But artificial fertilisers are heavily sourced from
fossil fuels. Those 'agricultural wastes' should be returned to the
soil to feed it.
	 The only solution is to end humanity's addiction to moving things
and people around.
:(
Bob

--------------------------------------------------
Dr Bob Rich
http://bobswriting.com
http://anxietyanddepression-help.com
http://mudsmith.net
Commit random acts of kindness
---------------------------------------------------

http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/ClimateActionNow/361
<http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/ClimateActionNow/361>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Greg,   Thankyou for this input.    Although I have a Diploma in
Physics I rue my ignorance in gaseous matters.   Peter Bright Tasmania
--- In ClimateChangeAction@..., greg hopwood
<ghoppy9@...> wrote:
>
> I digress. IMO, hydrogen as motor fuel extracted via electrolysis of
hot brine from solar (thermal or PV), wind or geothermal electricity
sources is the only way many people will be able to continue using
private vehicles.
>
> Spliting hydrogen & oxygen from water requires a minmum of 1.7 volts
input, with a return of 1.23 volts.Thus 0.47 volts consumed. So can be
acheived through low voltage equipment if need be, or desired. Heat (of
the water) is a consequence rather than requirement of the process, but
does hasten the process considerably.
> While common knowledge, it's worth remembering water boils at 100
degrees C.
>
> Extracting petroleum and dieseline from crude oil via thermal cracking
requires heating to just below boiling point of 600 degrees C. This can
be acheived with gas burners [apparently new refineries are converting
to gas burners] but oil companies recieve electricity subsidies, so
prefer large electric resistors acting as thermal heater elements
instead. During California's 'power crisis' semi regular blackouts were
the norm, and the oil industry successfully lobbied the Californian
government to priorortise electicity supplies to refineries over all
other users.
>
> So the argument that hydrogen production requires huge volumes of
energy input is less so than for its contemporary rival (petrol/diesel).
And the argument that hydrogen production via water electrolysis is
dependent on reliable/guaranteed supplies of electricity, applies
equally [but in larger volumes] to the current generation of oil
refineries.
>
> Realisically Joe & Mary Blo won't be able to afford the $50,000+ base
model hydrogen fuel cell car.
> Current fuel cells contain platinum [which has gone from aprox $1,600
p/oz a few months ago to $2001 p/oz ATM]. Fuel cells will make perfect
replacements for petrol/diesel powered farm generators ect, but still
have poor power to weight ratio problems in transport applications [fuel
cell + batteries + electric motor = lots of weight]. I think converting
existing internal combustion engined vehicles to run on hydrogen just
like LPG/CNG conversions will be much more affordable. And negates
waiting a decade plus for the vehicle industry to tool up properly while
fuel cell vehicles to become mainstream.
> BMW and Mazda have both released internal combustion engined vehicles
which run on hydrogen or petrol interchangeably. BP and Shell already
both sell hydrogen (albeit yet on a small scale) for IC engined and fuel
cell powered vehicles.
>
> The way I see it hydrogen is the only clean, practicle and affordable
motor fuel option. And over time most of the [motorised] world will
adopt it through necessity.
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Peter Bright hobart_elf@...
> To: ClimateChangeAction@...
> Sent: Sunday, 6 July, 2008 5:51:50 PM
> Subject: [ClimateChangeAction] Is solar hydrogen feasible?
>
>
> I thought solar hydrogen would be the best solution, but then I read
> this article again:
> http://www.thenewat lantis.com/ publications/ the-hydrogen- hoax
> <http://www.thenewat lantis.com/ publications/ the-hydrogen- hoax> I
> invite authoritive comment. Peter Bright Tasmania
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
> www.yahoo7.com.au/mail
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I digress. IMO, hydrogen as motor fuel extracted via electrolysis of hot brine
from solar (thermal or PV), wind or geothermal electricity sources is the only
way many people will be able to continue using private vehicles.

Spliting hydrogen & oxygen from water requires a minmum of 1.7 volts input, with
a return of 1.23 volts.Thus 0.47 volts consumed. So can be acheived through low
voltage equipment if need be, or desired. Heat (of the water) is a consequence
rather than requirement of the process, but does hasten the process
considerably.
While common knowledge, it's worth remembering water boils at 100 degrees C.

Extracting petroleum and dieseline from crude oil via thermal cracking requires
heating to just below boiling point of 600 degrees C. This can be acheived with
gas burners [apparently new refineries are converting to gas burners] but oil
companies recieve electricity subsidies, so prefer large electric resistors
acting as thermal heater elements instead. During California's 'power crisis'
semi regular blackouts were the norm, and the oil industry successfully lobbied
the Californian government to priorortise electicity supplies to refineries over
all other users.

So the argument that hydrogen production requires huge volumes of energy input
is less so than for its contemporary rival (petrol/diesel). And the argument
that hydrogen production via water electrolysis is dependent on
reliable/guaranteed supplies of electricity, applies equally [but in larger
volumes] to the current generation of oil refineries.

Realisically Joe & Mary Blo won't be able to afford the $50,000+ base model
hydrogen fuel cell car.
Current fuel cells contain platinum [which has gone from aprox $1,600 p/oz a few
months ago to $2001 p/oz ATM]. Fuel cells will make perfect replacements for
petrol/diesel powered farm generators ect, but still have poor power to weight
ratio problems in transport applications [fuel cell + batteries + electric motor
= lots of  weight]. I think converting existing internal combustion engined
vehicles to run on hydrogen just like LPG/CNG conversions will be much more
affordable. And negates waiting a decade plus for the vehicle industry to tool
up properly while fuel cell vehicles to become mainstream.
BMW and Mazda have both released internal combustion engined vehicles which run
on hydrogen or petrol interchangeably. BP and Shell already both sell hydrogen
(albeit yet on a small scale) for IC engined and fuel cell powered vehicles.

The way I see it hydrogen is the only clean, practicle and affordable motor fuel
option. And over time most of the [motorised] world will adopt it through
necessity.




----- Original Message ----
From: Peter Bright <hobart_elf@...>
To: ClimateChangeAction@...
Sent: Sunday, 6 July, 2008 5:51:50 PM
Subject: [ClimateChangeAction] Is solar hydrogen feasible?


I thought solar hydrogen would be the best solution, but then I read
this article again:
http://www.thenewat lantis.com/ publications/ the-hydrogen- hoax
<http://www.thenewat lantis.com/ publications/ the-hydrogen- hoax>    I
invite authoritive comment.   Peter Bright Tasmania

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




       Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
www.yahoo7.com.au/mail

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I thought solar hydrogen would be the best solution, but then I read
this article again:
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax
<http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax>    I
invite authoritive comment.   Peter Bright Tasmania


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

1) Wind Generator could be available next year (story dated June 2007)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/27/1963676.htm

2) Graeme Attey gets funding!
http://www.sciencewa.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=506&Itemid\
=587
http://www1.sedo.energy.wa.gov.au/pages/grants_outcomes_february2007.asp

3) How do we contact Graeme Attey?????
I've left messages here:
http://www.metaefficient.com/renewable-power/rooftop-wind-turbine-prototype-from\
-australia.html
and with the ABC.