Hydrogen Safety Compared to Gasoline

H2-PV NOW, possibly a kissing cousin of Global Warming @ARMY.com, wrote:

Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Ivan, Emily, Stan, Tammy, Jeanne, Frances, Charlie are all just previews before the main event. That's what happens NOW, not what happens when Global Warming really hits hard.

Safe prediction -- when "Global Warming" really hits, life will go on. Just as life has already survived for hundreds of millions of years (or longer), through hurricanes, volcanoes, Ice Ages, meteor strikes, nuclear attacks, Marxism -- oh!, and global warming. When global warming happens (again), there will be changes; but there will be changes even if global warming does not happen in the next few decades or centuries.
Calm down. Light up a wood fire. Enjoy looking into the flames -- it can be so relaxing!

On 16 Jan 2006 16:48:01 -0800, "Global Warming @ARMY.com" wrote:

Don Lancaster wrote: Global Warming @ARMY.com wrote: One suitcase-sized tank of gasoline holds the exact same BTUs of four suitcases of hydrogen gas @ 10 ksi. The tank weighs less than the H2 contents. Even an old VW bug could find a place for four suitcases on board.
Approximating such a container as a 40 inch cube, its total surface area would be 9600 square inches. At 10 kilopsi, the total bursting force on the container would be just under ONE HUNDRED MILLION POUNDS.
Or 5000 tons.
NOBODY but NOBODY could possibly be stupid enough to suggest turning these loose on the general public.
What a gibbering idiot you are. 10 ksi means 10 ksi, or don't you understand the physics of gases?

Actually, Sparky, he wrote "10kpsi", not "10ksi".
Before you decide who's the idiot, it might help if you understood that 10kpsi means 10,000 pounds per square inch.

2,000,000 psi tensile strength means 2,000,000 psi tensile strength, or don't you understand basic physics of materials?
I'd like you to explain how 10 kilos of gas in 270 liter volume container equals "ONE HUNDRED MILLION POUNDS". That must be some "new math" they teach in the creation-science academy.

If there are 9600 square inches, then there are a total of 96 million pounds of force pushing on the sides. He said "just under" one hundred million pounds. The mass of the contents is irrelevant.

As stated in the top of the thread, hydrogen tanks have passed 24,000 psi bursting strength test in the USA and Europe. (2.35 safety factor over rated contents pressure.)
YOUR willful ignorance, or DELIBERATE LIES are far more dangerous to the public than any hydrogen tank with 100 ksi made out of tissue paper. We let you out in public don't we?

Your ignorance, on the other hand, is simply funny, because no one here would ever take you seriously.

G. R. L. Cowan wrote:

"Global Warming @ARMY.com" wrote:
G. R. L. Cowan wrote: "Global Warming @ARMY.com" wrote:
YOUR willful ignorance, or DELIBERATE LIES are far more dangerous to the public than any hydrogen tank with 100 ksi made out of tissue paper. We let you out in public don't we?
No, Don's in the room two doors down from you.
--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
The former Graham Cowan is still unable to address the topic at the head of the thread. http://h2-pv.us/H2/h2_safety_swain/swain_safety.html
I have addressed it in the past. Searching "Sent" file for Swain ... here we go.
http://evworld.com/databases/storybuilder.cfm?storyid=482&subcookie=1
Interesting that the hydrogen flame stands up so visibly, isn't it. Don't miss my comment in the right margin of the story.

Graham Cowan (from link provided): "One should read the linked PDF by Dr. Swain. It says that several sets of high and low-resolution spectra were obtained and this involved relighting the flame several times. Its jetting up clear of the car, and not destroying it, would therefore seem not to have been much of a surprise to Swain, however much of one it was to EV World's headline writer. 19/Jan/2003 "
The reason this experiment was performed in the first place was to photograph the spectra. This experiment has been done many times in the past with similar results. The flames should not photograph as yellow burning pure hydrogen. Swain wanted to photograph the spectra to determine why there was any yellow part to the flames. The event was photographed at night to make the spectra more clear.
The videotaped portion is exactly continuous, no reignition several times. You are making an unwarranted accusation of scientific fraud based on misreading a phrase or two out of context. This experiment has been performed multiple times by multiple teams of unrelated researchers. The combustion is typical, not atypical.
This is the exact quote from Swain: "Several sets of high and low-resolution spectra were obtained and this involved relighting the flame several times. It is an extremely turbulent diffusion flame but nevertheless the degree of reproducibility of both the low and high-resolution spectra was remarkable."
He says he did the burn several times, not that it was started and stopped mid-course several times.
Modern H2 vehicles are designed to jet the fuel in bonfire conditions, rather than build explosive pressures. H2 burns at lower ignition temps than it's explosion limits, meaning that it burns off before an explosive buildup can occur in most outdoors ventilated conditions.
The world body of codes and certifiers sets the safety requirement that the fuel be vented like this under specific conditions. Swain photographed what that means for passenger safety.

A related story at http://www.firehouse.com/news/99/4/8_APblast.html should make lurkers ask themselves, what if Dr. Swain had waited 30 seconds rather than 3 before igniting the leak?

http://www.firehouse.com/news/99/4/8_APblast.html Fla. Power Plant Blast Kills 2 Story Updated: Thurs, April 8, 1999 - 6 pm ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It's now 2006. Can't you find anything more recent? I don't have to search back 6 or 7 years for gasoline deaths: http://snipurl.com/lmxv Google Results about 348,000 for Gasoline tanker explosion deaths.
http://www.charleston.net/stories/?newsID=63011&section=worldnation Wednesday, January 04, 2006 - Last Updated: 7:39 AM Report: Captain's order led to tanker explosion
http://www.death-valley.us/article1275.html Posted on Friday, April 29, 2005 @ 22:37:21 PST Fiery fatal
http://www.kilgorenewsherald.com/news/2005/0324/Front_Page/001.html March 24, 2005 Explosion death toll stands at 14 TEXAS CITY, Texas (AP) - Anxious relatives awaited word of loved ones missing when a thunderous blast rocked a sprawling oil refinery south of Houston, killing at least 14 workers, injuring more than 100 others and rattling windows as far as five miles away.
You fundamental dishonesty is in question. First you accused a scientist of falsifying data based on your misreading of the report. Then you looked high and low for examples and found one, presumably the best example you can find, which is going on seven years old, which provides no information of the safety equipment present or missing from the scene of the accident. Finally you toss in some inuendo about

what if Dr. Swain had waited 30 seconds rather than 3 before igniting the leak?

The hydrogen cloud would be 90 feet in the air after 30 seconds. Most of the gases would be rising too fast to combust from the ignition below and the flame at the gas tank would have the same amount of fuel left as it did in the video at 30 seconds into release, making it have 30 seconds of life left instead of the full minute it showed in the video.
THIS EXPERIMENT HAS BEEN DONE MANY TIMES. Swain just set out to preserve one instance that the public could see, and to get to the bottom of the yellow glow associated with this experiment frequently in the past.
http://www.bmwworld.com/hydrogen/stragegy.htm .... Crash tests with tanks for liquid hydrogen.
In close cooperation with the T�V South Germany Technical Inspection Authority, the BMW Group has conducted a comprehensive range of tests examining various accident scenarios and determining how the liquid hydrogen tank behaves in the process. One of the test procedures was to destroy full tanks under high pressure after deliberately blocking their safety valves. The predetermined rupture point inside the tank provided for such an extreme case allows controlled discharge of the hydrogen without any major risks or hazards.
In a further series of tests vehicle tanks filled with liquid hydrogen were subjected to various fire conditions in a special test area: In the process the tanks were surrounded by flames at a temperature of almost 1000 �C or approximately 1850 �F for up to 70 minutes. Again, the tanks did not present any problems, the evaporated hydrogen slowly escaping through the safety valves in a smooth, almost imperceptible flow of gas. In the last series of tests, finally, car tanks containing liquid hydrogen were deformed and seriously damaged by hard, solid objects. None of the tanks exploded.
Thorough and very demanding crash tests were also conducted successfully on the overall vehicle as a complete "system" and are described in greater detail in the Chapter on "How Cars Run on Hydrogen". After these comprehensive examinations, the T�V Technical Inspection Authority arrived at the conclusion that hydrogen can be used just as safely as gasoline. ...
You, Cowen, are a know-nothing pretending to be a know-little.
http://www-old.ineris.fr/connaitre/domaines/accidentels/pdf/reservoirs.pdf .... 4.2.4. Test n�4 A hydrogen-pressurised cylinder was submitted to the impact of a gun bullet, shot at point-blank range and having an initial speed of about 850 m/s. The angle between the shooting axis and the cylinder axis was 45� and the impact zone was at the bottom of the bottle. The bullet has passed through the cylinder, which did not burst (photo n�4). Hydrogen discharged through both holes as two jets, but did not ignite. ....
4.2.5. Test n�5 A gas cylinder was half-filled with water and dropped from a height of 14 m, over a concrete slab (from such a height, the speed of the bottle when it touches the ground is close to 60 km/h). Then, a hydraulic rupture test was done : the cylinder rupture started at its bottom, which was the impact zone, for a pressure equal to 1000 bar. This figure is much lower than the normal rupture pressure, 1750 bar, and it can be concluded that the fall test strongly modified the mechanical characteristics of the cylinder bottom (photo 5). ...
4.2.6. Test n�6 Test n�6 was a crash car simulation : the cylinder was fixed horizontally on to a heavy concrete block, at such a height that it could be impacted upon by the bumper of a car crashing into the block. It was then pressurised by nitrogen under 700 bar. The car was launched by an air-gun and, at the crash time whose speed was 65 km/h and its kinetic energy was 144 kJ. The crash damaged the cylinder wall (photo 6), but the cylinder did not burst.
A hydraulic rupture test was done after the crash : the cylinder rupture started at its cylindrical part, where the impact had damaged it, but the rupture occurred for a pressure of 1700 bar, which is close to the normal rupture pressure : the crash test did not significantly modify the mechanical strength of the cylinder.

Bill Ward wrote:

On 16 Jan 2006 16:48:01 -0800, "Global Warming @ARMY.com" Global.Warming@ARMY.com> wrote:
Don Lancaster wrote: Global Warming @ARMY.com wrote: One suitcase-sized tank of gasoline holds the exact same BTUs of four suitcases of hydrogen gas @ 10 ksi. The tank weighs less than the H2 contents. Even an old VW bug could find a place for four suitcases on board.
Approximating such a container as a 40 inch cube, its total surface area would be 9600 square inches. At 10 kilopsi, the total bursting force on the container would be just under ONE HUNDRED MILLION POUNDS.
Or 5000 tons.
NOBODY but NOBODY could possibly be stupid enough to suggest turning these loose on the general public.
What a gibbering idiot you are. 10 ksi means 10 ksi, or don't you understand the physics of gases?
Actually, Sparky, he wrote "10kpsi", not "10ksi".
Before you decide who's the idiot, it might help if you understood that 10kpsi means 10,000 pounds per square inch.

Which, by definition and convention means exactly the same thing as 10 ksi. It's a very common abbreviation seen in engineer's writing frequently. And while we are being nitpickers he said exactly "10 kilopsi", not 10 kpsi nor 10 ksi. I interpreted his invetion of kilopsi to mean to say ksi, if his blathering means anything at all.

2,000,000 psi tensile strength means 2,000,000 psi tensile strength, or don't you understand basic physics of materials?
I'd like you to explain how 10 kilos of gas in 270 liter volume container equals "ONE HUNDRED MILLION POUNDS". That must be some "new math" they teach in the creation-science academy.
If there are 9600 square inches, then there are a total of 96 million pounds of force pushing on the sides. He said "just under" one hundred million pounds. The mass of the contents is irrelevant.

OH, thank you for giving me the creation-science version of reality. That means tha normal human bags of skin have hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not millions of pounds of pressure on them. In fact all that pressure seeping up your nostrals must squash your brains down into microscopic little compacted quantum dots.

As stated in the top of the thread, hydrogen tanks have passed 24,000 psi bursting strength test in the USA and Europe. (2.35 safety factor over rated contents pressure.)
YOUR willful ignorance, or DELIBERATE LIES are far more dangerous to the public than any hydrogen tank with 100 ksi made out of tissue paper. We let you out in public don't we?
Your ignorance, on the other hand, is simply funny, because no one here would ever take you seriously.

Thank you for admitting that you are no one. I needent give you any more thought.

Bill Ward wrote:

On 16 Jan 2006 16:48:01 -0800, "Global Warming @ARMY.com" Global.Warming@ARMY.com> wrote:
Don Lancaster wrote: Global Warming @ARMY.com wrote: One suitcase-sized tank of gasoline holds the exact same BTUs of four suitcases of hydrogen gas @ 10 ksi. The tank weighs less than the H2 contents. Even an old VW bug could find a place for four suitcases on board.
Approximating such a container as a 40 inch cube, its total surface area would be 9600 square inches. At 10 kilopsi, the total bursting force on the container would be just under ONE HUNDRED MILLION POUNDS.
Or 5000 tons.
NOBODY but NOBODY could possibly be stupid enough to suggest turning these loose on the general public.
What a gibbering idiot you are. 10 ksi means 10 ksi, or don't you understand the physics of gases?
Actually, Sparky, he wrote "10kpsi", not "10ksi".
Before you decide who's the idiot, it might help if you understood that 10kpsi means 10,000 pounds per square inch.

Which, by definition and convention means exactly the same thing as 10 ksi. It's a very common abbreviation seen in engineer's writing frequently. And while we are being nitpickers he said exactly "10 kilopsi", not 10 kpsi nor 10 ksi. I interpreted his invetion of kilopsi to mean to say ksi, if his blathering means anything at all.

2,000,000 psi tensile strength means 2,000,000 psi tensile strength, or don't you understand basic physics of materials?
I'd like you to explain how 10 kilos of gas in 270 liter volume container equals "ONE HUNDRED MILLION POUNDS". That must be some "new math" they teach in the creation-science academy.
If there are 9600 square inches, then there are a total of 96 million pounds of force pushing on the sides. He said "just under" one hundred million pounds. The mass of the contents is irrelevant.

OH, thank you for giving me the creation-science version of reality. That means tha normal human bags of skin have hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not millions of pounds of pressure on them. In fact all that pressure seeping up your nostrals must squash your brains down into microscopic little compacted quantum dots.

As stated in the top of the thread, hydrogen tanks have passed 24,000 psi bursting strength test in the USA and Europe. (2.35 safety factor over rated contents pressure.)
YOUR willful ignorance, or DELIBERATE LIES are far more dangerous to the public than any hydrogen tank with 100 ksi made out of tissue paper. We let you out in public don't we?
Your ignorance, on the other hand, is simply funny, because no one here would ever take you seriously.

Thank you for admitting that you are no one. I needn't give you any more thought.

Global Warming @ARMY.com wrote:

This shows you how stupid Halpern is:
Naw, in your dreams..

Joshua Halpern wrote:
1. Any practical fuel cell motor vehicle will use reforming from methanol or some such.
Note the some such. You evidently agree that reforming will be used.

Ammonia fuel cells use Ammonia, which reforms to non-polluting nitrogen gas plus water from the fuel cell. No carbon required. NH3 infrastructure already exists coast-to-coast in every large population center. Ammonia fuel cells are already on the road. Ammonia stores 1.7 times more hydrogen than LH2.

Ammonia gas release has it's own problems although explosions are not one of them, but it is a pretty nasty poison gas which has to be handled with respect. I look forward to the self tanking ammonia stations. (FWIW I handle ammonia on a daily basis. With respect)

2. In a hydrogen cycle, the hydrogen is generated by electricity which is generated somewhere else at a central facility. If you John McCarthy the cost of electricity, then the rest of the issues are irrelevant.
FALSE.
Here's the computation from the US Govt, NREL, on H2-PV. I checked all the math and found it acceptably accurate. You can check it yourself and report back any errors. Until you have completed your math-checking assignment, the numbers reported stands unimpeached.
It takes energy to synthesize ammonia. The Haber process uses hydrogen

from steam reforming of methane http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process
CH4(g) + H2O(g) → CO(g) + 3H2(g)
Per two moles of ammonia produced you consume one mole of methane, you also get a mole of CO which you have to do something with. If you just oxidize it you produce a mole of CO2 per two moles of ammonia. Then there is the energy that you need to (a) reduce the hydrogen in CH4 to H2 and (b) catalytically make ammonia from N2 + 3H2 --> 2NH3.
One suspects that running the fuel cell on CH4 might be more efficient. OTOH which starts with the first reaction and then reacts the synthesis gas CO + 2H2 ↔ CH3OH at 300 C and ~ 50 atm, which is a lot less than the Haber process.
Note that synthesis of H2 from CH4 is the energetically lowest cost way to go. Getting it from H2O is a lot more expensive in energy and $. Getting it from steam reforming of coal is releases a lot more CO(2) per unit C.

3. We are past peak oil, or damn near close to it.
We have seven times the reserves required to kill the earth if we burn it, or to put it another way, we can kill seven earths from the carbon fuels we know we have.
Most of those cost about as much energy to extract them as you get from

them. You are talking about shale and oil sands. Oil has to be well about $50 a barrel to make that attractive. The cost of pumping a barrel of oil in the Middle East is a few dollars, if you don't expense the army.
josh halpern

G. R. L. Cowan wrote:

"Global Warming @ARMY.com" wrote:
G. R. L. Cowan wrote:
"Global Warming @ARMY.com" wrote:
YOUR willful ignorance, or DELIBERATE LIES are far more dangerous to the public than any hydrogen tank with 100 ksi made out of tissue paper. We let you out in public don't we?
No, Don's in the room two doors down from you.
--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
The former Graham Cowan is still unable to address the topic at the head of the thread. http://h2-pv.us/H2/h2_safety_swain/swain_safety.html
I have addressed it in the past. Searching "Sent" file for Swain ... here we go.
http://evworld.com/databases/storybuilder.cfm?storyid=482&subcookie=1
Interesting that the hydrogen flame stands up so visibly, isn't it. Don't miss my comment in the right margin of the story.
A related story at http://www.firehouse.com/news/99/4/8_APblast.html should make lurkers ask themselves, what if Dr. Swain had waited 30 seconds rather than 3 before igniting the leak?
That's the car crap that is entrained. The flame in an oxy hydrogen

torch is hard to see. Consult your local glassblower.
josh halpern

"LongmuirG" wrote in message

Grahm Cowan wisely wrote: there's nothing phony about global warming science at all.
Agreed! Natural global warming is responsible for the temperature of the planet being about 60 Fahrenheit degrees above Stefan -Boltzman predictions. Almost all of that global warming is due to the number one Radiatively Active Gas -- water vapor. Without "global warming", there would probably be no life on this Earth.

You are confusing global warming with the greenhouse effect. Yes, natural GHE keeps the temperature about 33oC above where it would be without. How did you calculate "almost all" due to H2O? The only scientific sources I have seen that discuss this give water vapor about 60-70% (here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142 and here: http://www.radix.net/~bobg/climate/halpern.trap.html )
Note also in the first link the difference between a forcing (CO2) and a feedback (H2O).

The "phony" -- or at least "unproved" -- part is the alarmist anthropogenic global warming scare, which seems to have a lot more to do with advancing a certain political agenda than with science. The better the quality of the temperature data, the less obvious it is that there is any recent "global warming".

References? If you are thinking of the MSU satellite stuff, you are out of date, they show substantial warming as well. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=170 There is also the borehole records: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html
Everyone agrees the earth has warmed substantially except those advancing a certain political agenda. Do you have some data that disagrees?

Whatever "global warming" might be inferred from the data does not tie at all well to a cause/effect relationship with anthropogenic CO2. And if we consider where that anthropogenic CO@ comes from, about 40% of it appears to be related to land use changes (mainly in tropical countries), not fossil fuels. But there is a political agenda to be advanced, so let's not allow inconvenient facts to intrude.

Well, so far you have not provided any.

The physics of the Earth's climate is hugely complex. Today's mathematical models of global climate are hopelessly primitive in comparison, almost certainly omitting key feedback mechanisms. Yet most of the alarmist predictions are based not on data but on those inadequate mathematical models.

Have a look at these successful hindcasts: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm and this successful prediction: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/

Ignoring the politically-driven extremists with their ridiculously alarmist predictions, the sad thing is that even the more concerned of the genuine scientists (people like Hansen) predict we might start to see minor inconveniences from alleged anthropogenic global warming in about a century.

I don't have time to find you a recent essay of his that flies in the face of this statement, but surely if you make it you have some evidence?
-- Coby Beck (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

"LongmuirG" wrote in message

Graham Cowan wrote: Lot of warming since 1980, cf. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/
Data! I love it. Let's hope that Mr. Elifritz is watching & learning from your example.
Now think about that data. The authors claim that they know what the average global temperature was in the year 1900 to within a few hundredths of a degree Celsius. Not exactly a confidence builder. If they were more rigorous, their error band would increase as they went back in time, and their "global warming" would fall mostly within that error band.

This is a strange assumption. Why should the error band increase going back in time? Because the ink on the records fades?? Accurate thermometers have been around a long time, regular readings from hundreds of stations have been available since decades befor that record starts. Absent some indication of insight on your part, why should anyone think that the fellows at GISS are less competent than you and unable to think of the things you can rattle off in a usenet post?
Here are a couple of other surface temperature analyses: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-1.htm

But let's take their claim at face value. About half the "global warming" they claim to have identified occurred before 1940 -- when fossil fuel use was small compared to today. Then there is a decades-long period of stable global temperature after World War II, while fossil fuel use was exploding. Whatever this shows, it certainly does not show a convincing direct link between anthropogenic CO2 and "global warming". Then there is that apparent slight warming since the late 1970s, when the growth in fossil fuel use slowed down markedly with the Oil Shocks. That warming also happens to coincide with the growth of air travel -- with jets pumping out massive amounts of the Number 1 radiatively active gas (water vapor) directly into the stratosphere.

Correlation does not prove causation. I'm sure you love to (quite correctly) pull that out often. Likewise, lack of correlation does not prove irrelevance. Regardless, your historical speculations about what CO2 must have been doing after WWII and the 70's oil shock don't have much basis in the available data. CO2 has risen pretty darn steadily since direct air measurements began in the 50's ( http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-keel.htm ) - no leveling off in the 70's there.
Your arguments make two major errors: assuming that CO2 is either all or nothing and assuming an immediate response in the climate to changes in CO2. The all or nothing assumption makes you decide (here's the no correlation error) that because the steady rise in CO2 was not matched in ~1945 to ~1975 when temperatures fell therefore CO2 has no effect on temperature. Why couldn't some other forcing have dominated at that time? In fact during this time a cooling effect from particulate pollution took over until tighter regulations cleared the air again.
Have a look here at the various forcings over the last century: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/simodel/ and notice how stratospheric aerosols dominated for a time.

So what is the cause of the alleged gobal warming -- poor data? CO2? H2O? Just to be safe, let's cancel any more of those IPCC jamborees where thousands of greenies fly through the stratosphere to some remote location, pumping out water vapor all the way. Save the planet! Stop the environmental conferences!

What is this? An attempt to lower the level of discourse to where you're more comfortable? Not ver convincing stuff. If you have any sincere interest you should read here: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
-- Coby Beck (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

In article , "LongmuirG" writes:

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote: Apparently GHG emission is not part of your scientific vocabulary?
If you dig a little deeper, you will find that the scientific term for molecules which absorb & re-emit infra-red radiation is "Radiatively Active Gas".
"Green House Gas" was a junk science term, popularized by political extremists with no understanding of science and even less interest. It is not clear if the extremists adopted "GHG" out of ignorance, or if they were frightened by the concept of radiation in Radiatively Active Gas.
Either way, the extremists drive the funding, and once proud scientists are now using the junk science term -- especially when they are looking for funding. It tells us something about the anthropogenic global warming alarmists that even their language is the language of junk science.

I think you're typing a lot without really saying anything.
Solar radiation peaks in the visible but is also significant in near IR. When it is absorbed by the ground and warms the ground, the ground re-radiates it in the millimeter range, 1000x longer wavelength.
If you have a gas that is transparent in the micron range but opaque in the millimeter wavelength region, you have a "Greenhouse Gas", there is nothing "junk" about this term; it is analogous to glass used in greenhouses which is transparent in the micron range and opaque in the millimeter range.
-- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- Eskimo North Linux Friendly Internet Access, Shell Accounts, and Hosting. Knowledgable human assistance, not telephone trees or script readers. See our web site: http://www.eskimo.com/ (206) 812-0051 or (800) 246-6874.

In article , "Dave Gower" writes:

With reference to methane, Sorry to tell you this but huge amounts are released every day from a wide variety of natural sources. Capturing some of that as a fuel before it gets oxidized is not going to affect the balance of greenhouse gasses. If anything it might reduce them.

This isn't my argument, but, I would agree with you when you are talking about capturing methane that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere in the near term, i.e., cow farts, muncipal sewage treatment generated methane, refuse landfill generated methane, etc.
But releasing methane that would otherwise be sequestered deeply underground in geological formations or under water in hydrate formations, is another matter altogether.
However, I think there are natural sources for much of the current heating of the planet, specifically increases in solar radiative output, and increases in volcanic processes.
Mars and Pluto are also undergoing heating at present and I'm pretty sure that our CO2 output isn't responsible.
If anyone has been following, the wandering of the north pole has increased significantly recently, to the point where at the current rate (and the rate seems to be accelerating) it will be in Siberia within 50 years.
The southern Atlantic anomoly has expanded to the point where it's almost nullifying the south pole; and we're seeing some strange things like migratory birds that normally nest in Antarctica showing up in Northern California.
In 1994, I noticed an unusual number of deep quakes but now that I go back and look I'm not able to find them. But at the time looking at 500km or greater depth, there were 10x the number for any previous year except one back in the 50's.
Both the changes to the magnetic field and the deep quake activity to me suggests changes in the fluid movement in the core and the convection pattern in the mantel.
I find it interesting two that the pickup in the rate of the magnetic field wandering in our planet is coinciding with the Sun's field being somewhat strange. Normally the sun goes through a 22 year cycle where the poles flip every 11 years. During the time they flip, sunspot activity is high, when they're stable, it's low. But not this cycle, the poles flipped in 2001, but sunspot and solar flare activity has remained heavy.
There was a 100 year period during which there was essentially no solar sunspot / flare activity; and during that period the temperatures were lower than normal on earth. Now, we're going through a period where the solar activity is higher than normal so it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect temperatures to be higher than normal. The solar flux is also up somewhat. The Sun is considerably more stable than many other stars of similar size that we can observe but it still is to some degree variable.
We find wooly mamoths frozen in the arctic with bits of apple still in their mouths. Now, present day climate wouldn't support any trees above the arctic circle but at one time there were apple trees there, a temperate climate had to exist at that time. But we weren't around pumping CO2 into the air back then so there must have been other things contributing to the warmth in the arctic then.
-- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- Eskimo North Linux Friendly Internet Access, Shell Accounts, and Hosting. Knowledgable human assistance, not telephone trees or script readers. See our web site: http://www.eskimo.com/ (206) 812-0051 or (800) 246-6874.

In article , Thomas Lee Elifritz writes:

LongmuirG wrote:
The better the quality of the temperature data, the less obvious it is that there is any recent "global warming".
Crackpot Alert.
plonk
http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Quality can be subjective. If "Quality" data is that which supports your view point then you can support any viewpoint you want with "Quality" data.
My own personal viewpoint is even if we had been producing no CO2, we'd still be seeing global warming right now from natural sources.
I think we're making it happen faster and more dramatically, but I think it would happen with or without us.
-- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- Eskimo North Linux Friendly Internet Access, Shell Accounts, and Hosting. Knowledgable human assistance, not telephone trees or script readers. See our web site: http://www.eskimo.com/ (206) 812-0051 or (800) 246-6874.

LongmuirG wrote:

H2-PV NOW, possibly a kissing cousin of Global Warming @ARMY.com, wrote: Katrina, Rita, Wilma, Ivan, Emily, Stan, Tammy, Jeanne, Frances, Charlie are all just previews before the main event. That's what happens NOW, not what happens when Global Warming really hits hard.
Safe prediction -- when "Global Warming" really hits, life will go on. Just as life has already survived for hundreds of millions of years (or longer), through hurricanes, volcanoes, Ice Ages, meteor strikes, nuclear attacks, Marxism -- oh!, and global warming. When global warming happens (again), there will be changes; but there will be changes even if global warming does not happen in the next few decades or centuries.
Calm down. Light up a wood fire. Enjoy looking into the flames -- it can be so relaxing!

Your mental twin, Charlie Manson, says that looking into a pool of blood draining from a pregnant victim is also very relaxing. You mass murderers do enjoy your relaxation, don't you?

In article , "LongmuirG" wrote:

Graham Cowan wrote: Lot of warming since 1980, cf. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/
Data! I love it. Let's hope that Mr. Elifritz is watching & learning from your example.
Now think about that data. The authors claim that they know what the average global temperature was in the year 1900 to within a few hundredths of a degree Celsius. Not exactly a confidence builder.

Perhaps because you're ignorant about the science. To a layman, I bet saying we know the mass of a carbon atom to umpteen decimal places sounds funny too.

If they were more rigorous, their error band would increase as they went back in time, and their "global warming" would fall mostly within that error band.

No it wouldn't.

But let's take their claim at face value. About half the "global warming" they claim to have identified occurred before 1940 -- when fossil fuel use was small compared to today.

So? It's like entropy -- when the content is low, it doesn't take as much to cause a similar change.

Then there is a decades-long period of stable global temperature after World War II, while fossil fuel use was exploding.

Yes, which has been explained many times -- aerosols.

Whatever this shows, it certainly does not show a convincing direct link between anthropogenic CO2 and "global warming".

Again, because you're ignorant.

Then there is that apparent slight warming since the late 1970s,

Try significant.

when the growth in fossil fuel use slowed down markedly with the Oil Shocks.

No it didn't.

That warming also happens to coincide with the growth of air travel -- with jets pumping out massive amounts of the Number 1 radiatively active gas (water vapor) directly into the stratosphere.

Water vapor has remained fairly constant -- there's this thing called "rain."

So what is the cause of the alleged gobal warming -- poor data? CO2? H2O? Just to be safe, let's cancel any more of those IPCC jamborees where thousands of greenies fly through the stratosphere to some remote location, pumping out water vapor all the way. Save the planet! Stop the environmental conferences!

How about you learn some science?
>

In article , "LongmuirG" wrote:

The poster calling himself (herself?) Global Warming @ARMY.com wrote: The mechanism is excess carbon release into the atmosphere sufficient to cause Global Warming to levels lethal to higher multi-celled lifeforms. There is more than generous known reserves of carbon fuels to exceed the heat-death limits of the planet seven times over.
Thanks for the info. Obvious follow-up question -- Why do you find this credible?
The temperature range on the planet today probably runs from about -40 deg F in the far north to 120 deg F in the southern Tropics. And everywhere, there is multicelled life. Animals have evolved to live in a wide range of temperature regimes.

Evolution is a slow process. Organisms cannot adapt to rapid change.

Plants also have acclimatised themselves to different temperature zones -- just look at any mountainside.

See above. Plus climate change will bring rainfall changes. Do you propose mankind wait for millenia for plants to adapt before picking up agriculture again?

Plants also benefit from living on carbon dioxide.

Up to a point.

Even if there were massive global warming (correction -- at some future point in geological time, there will definitely be massive global warming), some species will die and others will survive, & maybe thrive.

What if man is one of the ones which doesn't thrive?

That is the absolute worst case scenario. Eliminating all multi-celled lifeforms through "global warming" is simply not credible.
Straw man. Nobody has claimed this.