Hydrogen Safety Compared to Gasoline

Dan, I beg to differ. Oil sands is not poor at EROE. The fact that they are producing $65 oil with a gross profit of $40 - $45 is proof that it is efficient. Furthermore, if the ratio of gas to oil prices were to rise a lot (as some forecast) there are readily available technologies for burning the waste parts of the oil sands to refine the rest, nearly eliminating the need for NG. Jim

In article , Charlie Edmondson wrote:

Lloyd Parker wrote:
Evolution is a slow process. Organisms cannot adapt to rapid change.

Obviously, you know little about the present 'state of the art' of evolutionary theory. Its name is Catastrophism, and is basically the study of how things change VERY RAPIDLY when the exrement hits the air moving instrument in the environment.

Is that why species are dying out as their environment changes?
Catastrophism basically says species die off due to sudden changes which opens the door for the species which didn't die off to come to the forefront.

It is also why many folks look at evolution with very questioning eyes...
Charlie Yes, ignorant and illiterate fundamentalists. Does that include you?

In article , "LongmuirG" wrote:

Coby Beck failed to live up to his reputation, writing about global temperature: 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.
Think about normal scientific error bands. Start with what we mean by "global temperature" - you know, the temperature that is supposed to have increased by about 0.8 Celsius degree over the last 100 years? Is there a temperature gauge somewhere in the Sierra Club's palatial headquarters which reads the "global temperature" accurate to 0.01 Celsius?

If you have many many measurements, the uncertainty drops as N increases.

In my neighborhood, difference between daily low & high is often over 20 Celsius degrees. Difference between winter low & summer high is over 50 Celsius degrees -- and we are looking for year-on-year average global temperature differences measured in hundredths of a degree? Quite a challenge!

Not with huge data sets. How can we know the atomic mass of a carbon atom? Ans -- we measure the mass of a mole of them.

To come up with a definitive annual average global temperature, we would first have to decide what we wanted to measure -- temperature at ground level? Or 1 meter above ground? Or 3 meters above ground? Then we would have to take many measurements and average them over time & location. Say we took a fairly coarse discretization -- one temperature reading per hour per square kilometer. Over a year, that would be roughly 8,800 readings at each of 510 million locations; 4.5 trillion temperature readings. We would have to correct each reading for calibration, and then adjust them all to a common datum. (Temperature varies with elevation, of course, and it is about 9,200 meters from the lowest point to the highest point on the Earth's surface). Next we would need to develop an objective unbiased methodology to modify those adjusted readings for local effects -- some of those square kilometers are going to include things like volcanoes & steel mills. Then do the arithmetic and we have got our annual average global temperature for one year.
Of course, we don't actually measure 4.5 trillion real temperature readings per year, so all we can get is an approximation to the true annual average global temperature, incorporating many assumptions. How good an approximation? Great question! It would be nice to know, especially when we are trying to measure such tiny changes.
Now, how do we come up with the global temperature for the year 1900? In 1900, horsepower meant exactly that. Sailing ships were still in use. No human being had even reached the South Pole, let alone measured its temperature. How do we confirm the calibration of old temperature records from 1900? Obviously, there are lots & lots & lots of assumptions in the global temperature for 1900.
It is fairly obvious that the uncertainty band for "annual average global temperature" gets wider as we go further back in time and have to rely on increasingly sparse, decreasingly reliable records. And if we take account of that increasing uncertainty, the alleged "global warming" trend may well disappear into the error bars.

oilaholic wrote:

Dan, I beg to differ. Oil sands is not poor at EROE. The fact that they are producing $65 oil with a gross profit of $40 - $45 is proof that it is efficient.

No, that is proof you can produce for some $20-$25 a barrel. Saudi Arabia produces for $1.50 a barrel.

Furthermore, if the ratio of gas to oil prices were to rise a lot (as some forecast) there are readily available technologies for burning the waste parts of the oil sands to refine the rest, nearly eliminating the need for NG.

Sure there is. But this increases cost and waste water. And considering the declines that are likely in NG, they will have to add infrastructure.
But as I said, it is too little too late. We should have started addressing peak oil thirty years ago.
http://lakeweb.com/tmp/Hirsch.pdf

Jim

Best, Dan.
-- "We need an energy policy that encourages consumption" George W. Bush.
"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." Vice President Dick Cheney

Coby Beck disappointed his audience again:

We would have to correct each reading for calibration, ...
Again, irrelevant ...

Calibration is irrelevant? Oh dear!
The point that you establish beyond doubt is that you have no idea how "annual average global temperature" is determined -- yet you are sincerely concerned that it is increasing. Sounds like what the psychologists call "confirmation bias".
It is unfortunate that so-called environmentalists have made the issue of global climate so political, using it as a vehicle to advance their ulterior motives. It would be useful for human beings to have a much better understanding of the extremely complex physics of this planet than we have today, starting with honest analysis of the basic data. But we won't get there, dear Coby, unless sincere people like you start to use your faculties for independent thinking.

In article , "LongmuirG" wrote:

Coby Beck disappointed his audience again: We would have to correct each reading for calibration, ...
Again, irrelevant ...
Calibration is irrelevant? Oh dear!
The point that you establish beyond doubt is that you have no idea how "annual average global temperature" is determined -- yet you are sincerely concerned that it is increasing. Sounds like what the psychologists call "confirmation bias".
It is unfortunate that so-called environmentalists

So the National Academy of Sciences is this?

have made the issue of global climate so political, using it as a vehicle to advance their ulterior motives.

I can hardly wait for the "socialism" accusation.

It would be useful for human beings to have a much better understanding of the extremely complex physics of this planet than we have today, starting with honest analysis of the basic data. But we won't get there, dear Coby, unless sincere people like you start to use your faculties for independent thinking.

In article , Charlie Edmondson wrote:

Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article , Charlie Edmondson wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:
Evolution is a slow process. Organisms cannot adapt to rapid change.

Obviously, you know little about the present 'state of the art' of evolutionary theory. Its name is Catastrophism, and is basically the study of how things change VERY RAPIDLY when the exrement hits the air moving instrument in the environment.
Is that why species are dying out as their environment changes?
Catastrophism basically says species die off due to sudden changes which opens the door for the species which didn't die off to come to the forefront.
It is also why many folks look at evolution with very questioning eyes...
Charlie
Yes, ignorant and illiterate fundamentalists. Does that include you?
Oh! Hit a nerve, did I!

Sure. Claiming the earth is flat would have evoked a similar response.

Did I contracict one of your fundamentalist beliefs in Evolution, did I? I love poking holes in evolutionist beliefs...

Too bad you're too ignorant to know what you're doing.

Actually, I am pretty convinced SOMETHING happens when we get 'punctuated equilibrum/catastrophism/pick your name if it doesn't confuse your beliefs' happens. What I am also convinced is that most of the evolution believers have no idea WHAT that something is.

I'm convinced you're one ignoranant fool.

There are mechanisms that we have observed that cause small changes in existing species. New species? You have to sorta 'expand' the definition of species to say that. Traditional definition was species could not interbreed, but that has been eroded to just be they look different, hence we get lots of new species!
But, simple mathematics of genetics show that many observed changes just can't happen with mutations as we understand it.

That's flat out wrong.

There is another fundamental mechanism that at present is unknown, so whether you call it Intelligent Design, God, or just 'The Unknown' doesn't matter. You find out that most of the Evolution believers are just as faith based as the detractors.

You're lying.

So, what the heck does this have to do with the Hydrogen Economy? Simple, those who believe in the 'Hydrogen Economy' are basing their assertions just as much on faith as the Evolutionists and Creationists. I WANT IT TO BE LIKE THIS! AND NO FACTS WILL STOP MY BELIEFS!

Yes, that does seem to be your creed.

But, the truth is that hydrogen will be a small part of any future energy economy, probably as a feedstock to produce or enhance synthetic hydrocarbons. Photovoltaics will be a part of the solution, but only as it becomes economically viable. Biodiesel and coal based synthetic fuels will be much more common, again, as they become economically advantageous.
Charlie

In article , "LongmuirG" wrote:

Coby Beck responded somewhat defensively: [Cut it all -- it can be read above]
Coby, Coby, Coby! Quit hiding from yourself. You are better than this.
Now, we are all in agreement that (a) the annual average global temperature cannot be directly measured.

Neither can the mass of a single carbon atom.

It has to be defined, and then calculated from a sufficient number of actual data that can be directly measured. (b) the underlying direct measurements each have an associated uncertainty, and the derived annual average global temperature also has an associated uncertainty.

And the more measurements, the smaller the uncertainty.

Simple questions -- How wide is that error bar on the annual average global temperature estimated today? How wide is it on the annual average global temperature estimated on the much sparser, much less reliable records we have from the year 1900?

LongmuirG wrote:

Coby Beck disappointed his audience again:
We would have to correct each reading for calibration, ...
Again, irrelevant ...
Calibration is irrelevant? Oh dear!
The point that you establish beyond doubt is that you have no idea how "annual average global temperature" is determined -- yet you are sincerely concerned that it is increasing. Sounds like what the psychologists call "confirmation bias".
It is unfortunate that so-called environmentalists have made the issue of global climate so political, using it as a vehicle to advance their ulterior motives. It would be useful for human beings to have a much better understanding of the extremely complex physics of this planet than we have today, starting with honest analysis of the basic data. But we won't get there, dear Coby, unless sincere people like you start to use your faculties for independent thinking.
And continuing this point...

Have you (coby) looked into how these numbers are obtained? There are all sorts of 'correction' factors added and multiplied to all these different historical measurements to try and account for all the probable errors in these measurements. I have seen some of the papers on how they get the global warming measurements, mentioning how they 'massage' the data from this station, or that one, to get the data to meet their conclusions. Lots of interesting stuff, even in modern readings, trying to get satellite data and ground data, and radiosonde data to all match up.
What it all comes down to is statistics. And like the master said, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics... 8-)
Charlie

Charlie Edmondson wrote:

What it all comes down to is statistics. And like the master said, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics...

And then there is Charlie Edmondson, liar and crackpot.
<plonk>
http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Lloyd Parker wrote:

In article , Charlie Edmondson wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:
Evolution is a slow process. Organisms cannot adapt to rapid change.

Obviously, you know little about the present 'state of the art' of evolutionary theory. Its name is Catastrophism, and is basically the study of how things change VERY RAPIDLY when the exrement hits the air moving instrument in the environment.
Is that why species are dying out as their environment changes?
Catastrophism basically says species die off due to sudden changes which opens the door for the species which didn't die off to come to the forefront.
It is also why many folks look at evolution with very questioning eyes...
Charlie
Yes, ignorant and illiterate fundamentalists. Does that include you?

Oh! Hit a nerve, did I! Did I contracict one of your fundamentalist beliefs in Evolution, did I? I love poking holes in evolutionist beliefs...
Actually, I am pretty convinced SOMETHING happens when we get 'punctuated equilibrum/catastrophism/pick your name if it doesn't confuse your beliefs' happens. What I am also convinced is that most of the evolution believers have no idea WHAT that something is.
There are mechanisms that we have observed that cause small changes in existing species. New species? You have to sorta 'expand' the definition of species to say that. Traditional definition was species could not interbreed, but that has been eroded to just be they look different, hence we get lots of new species!
But, simple mathematics of genetics show that many observed changes just can't happen with mutations as we understand it. There is another fundamental mechanism that at present is unknown, so whether you call it Intelligent Design, God, or just 'The Unknown' doesn't matter. You find out that most of the Evolution believers are just as faith based as the detractors.
So, what the heck does this have to do with the Hydrogen Economy? Simple, those who believe in the 'Hydrogen Economy' are basing their assertions just as much on faith as the Evolutionists and Creationists. I WANT IT TO BE LIKE THIS! AND NO FACTS WILL STOP MY BELIEFS!
But, the truth is that hydrogen will be a small part of any future energy economy, probably as a feedstock to produce or enhance synthetic hydrocarbons. Photovoltaics will be a part of the solution, but only as it becomes economically viable. Biodiesel and coal based synthetic fuels will be much more common, again, as they become economically advantageous.
Charlie

"LongmuirG" wrote in message

Coby Beck disappointed his audience again: We would have to correct each reading for calibration, ...
Again, irrelevant ...
Calibration is irrelevant? Oh dear!

Wow. Your second response to me and you have already reduced yourself to the oldest entry in the Usenet Handbook of Dirty Tricks. The actual exchange was this:

LongmuirG: We would have to correct each reading for calibration, and then adjust them all to a common datum. (Temperature varies with elevation, of course, and it is about 9,200 meters from the lowest point to the highest point on the Earth's surface). Coby: Again, irrelevant except where you can show a particular station has changed its altitude due to subsidence or geostatic rebound or whatever else might effect it.

You cut my 25 word response at word 2 and you removed the point it was a response to. Surprise, surprise, another "concerned climate sceptic" who has nothing to argue with and instead lies and misrepresents.
Oh yes, and ignores about 99% of what I wrote, including direct and simple questions. This is what remains unanswered by you:
REPOST=============

In my neighborhood, difference between daily low & high is often over 20 Celsius degrees. Difference between winter low & summer high is over 50 Celsius degrees -- and we are looking for year-on-year average global temperature differences measured in hundredths of a degree? Quite a challenge!

I don't believe that it is such a technological challenge to measure 1/100th of a degree celsius. But anyway, I think the high precision numbers you do sometimes see are results of the mathematics and as they come with ranges and error bars you are really just creating a strawman here. You are also getting confused by number of decimal places versus significant digits. If we have a measured change of .8oC over 100years this is .008oC per year, both figures are one significant digit. That does not mean anyone is claiming they measured 14.003oC one day and 14.011 the next.

To come up with a definitive annual average global temperature, we would first have to decide what we wanted to measure -- temperature at ground level? Or 1 meter above ground? Or 3 meters above ground?

You must also ensure that wind and rain and direct sunlight do not bias your readings. Yes, these things have been thought about and standards set. It is not however required that every station adhere to the same height standard as every other, only that they each be consistent. No one cares if the global average temperature at 2 metres is 14.50 or 14.51 the information of interest is the change over time. Consistency is the only requirement.

Then we would have to take many measurements and average them over time & location. Say we took a fairly coarse discretization -- one temperature reading per hour per square kilometer. Over a year, that would be roughly 8,800 readings at each of 510 million locations; 4.5 trillion temperature readings.

This is just ridiculous overkill. You know nothing about sampling data. Nor are hourly readings required for this analysis, just the daily high and low.

We would have to correct each reading for calibration, and then adjust them all to a common datum. (Temperature varies with elevation, of course, and it is about 9,200 meters from the lowest point to the highest point on the Earth's surface).

Again, irrelevant except where you can show a particular station has changed its altitude due to subsidence or geostatic rebound or whatever else might effect it.

Next we would need to develop an objective unbiased methodology to modify those adjusted readings for local effects -- some of those square kilometers are going to include things like volcanoes & steel mills. Then do the arithmetic and we have got our annual average global temperature for one year.

Why do you find this so daunting? But rejecting the ridiculous premise of one station every kilometer we can avoid volcanoes and most steel mills.

Of course, we don't actually measure 4.5 trillion real temperature readings per year, so all we can get is an approximation to the true annual average global temperature, incorporating many assumptions. How good an approximation? Great question! It would be nice to know, especially when we are trying to measure such tiny changes.

Why don't you read all about it here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/
Follow the links, read the papers, ask the authors for clarifications. Or do you prefer FUD over facts?

Now, how do we come up with the global temperature for the year 1900? In 1900, horsepower meant exactly that. Sailing ships were still in use. No human being had even reached the South Pole, let alone measured its temperature. How do we confirm the calibration of old temperature records from 1900? Obviously, there are lots & lots & lots of assumptions in the global temperature for 1900.

You are again arguing from ignorance and assuming that the people who study these issues know less than you. Why would anyone believe that? Why would you believe that? There are indeed issues similar to what you describe. But they are problems that get solved not issues everyone obediently ignores so as not to anger their Greenpease masters.
If you are dealing with all manner of random errors it will not effect your trends, the real challenges are in identifying sources of bias (such as urban heat islands) and coming up with methods for correction. But these are not show stoppers, they are things that very smart people study and deal with.

It is fairly obvious that the uncertainty band for "annual average global temperature" gets wider as we go further back in time and have to rely on increasingly sparse, decreasingly reliable records. And if we take account of that increasing uncertainty, the alleged "global warming" trend may well disappear into the error bars.

Did you look at these? http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-1.htm
The error range is way too small. Besides, that wishful thinking cuts both ways, why are you not warning us that the trend may actually be much larger?
Did you look at the borehole records? Less resolution but longer term and all modern-day direct measurements: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html
Satellites, radio sondes, surface readings, borehole readings, ocean temperature measurements, world-wide glacial response, it all agrees. Aren't you tired yet? You must be because you ignored most of my post.
END REPOST========================
Imagine my disappointment when you removed all that from your reply and did not address *any single point* I raised. Of particular interest are: - Why do you think you are more competent than the scientists at GISS? - Why does the altitude of a particular station matter if it is unchanged? - Why do you think we need trillions of measurements, this shows great ignorance of how to sample data? - Why do you think the legitimate difficulties posed by changing insturments, moving staions, urban heat island effects, varied concentrations of stations etc are insurmountable? - Why are you not concerned that errors have potentially resulted in an underestimation of temperature change? - Do you prefer FUD over facts? - Did you look at the borehole records?

The point that you establish beyond doubt is that you have no idea how "annual average global temperature" is determined -- yet you are sincerely concerned that it is increasing. Sounds like what the psychologists call "confirmation bias".
It is unfortunate that so-called environmentalists have made the issue of global climate so political, using it as a vehicle to advance their ulterior motives.

I agree, the issue is politicized. This is why I do not recommend getting your scientific information from political organizations like TechCentralStation, JunkScience or Greenpeace. Instead try established scientific institutions that specialize in climate, ocean and atmosphere fields. Institutions like these:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/ http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html http://www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm http://yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135 http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
Denying the rising temperature is truly a desparate mental contortion, not even Pat Michaels, Fred Singer or Steve Milloy, the best scientists and journalist Exxon's money can buy, not even these fine fellows deny the temperature is rising. You have fallen off the denialist's bandwagon, you missed the call for retreat. The new trench has been dug at "it's a magic natural rise that has nothing to do with humans"

It would be useful for human beings to have a much better understanding of the extremely complex physics of this planet than we have today, starting with honest analysis of the basic data.

There is nothing honest in your presentations here.

But we won't get there, dear Coby, unless sincere people like you start to use your faculties for independent thinking.

Given your resorting to nothing but dirty tricks, you don't give me much reason to be concerned about my own faculties for independent thinking, thanks.
-- Coby Beck (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

Coby Beck responded somewhat defensively:

[Cut it all -- it can be read above]

Coby, Coby, Coby! Quit hiding from yourself. You are better than this.
Now, we are all in agreement that (a) the annual average global temperature cannot be directly measured. It has to be defined, and then calculated from a sufficient number of actual data that can be directly measured. (b) the underlying direct measurements each have an associated uncertainty, and the derived annual average global temperature also has an associated uncertainty.
Simple questions -- How wide is that error bar on the annual average global temperature estimated today? How wide is it on the annual average global temperature estimated on the much sparser, much less reliable records we have from the year 1900?

"LongmuirG" wrote in message

Coby Beck responded somewhat defensively: [Cut it all -- it can be read above]
Coby, Coby, Coby! Quit hiding from yourself. You are better than this.

This is a tremendously ironic remark considering you are the one dodging every single question I have asked you. You have also tried the most dishonest use of context removal I recall in an aparently serious exchange, editing this:
LG We would have to correct each reading LG for calibration, and then adjust them all to a common datum. LG (Temperature varies with elevation, of course, and it is about 9,200 LG meters from the lowest point to the highest point on the Earth's LG surface).

CB Again, irrelevant except where you can show a particular station has

CB changed its altitude due to subsidence or geostatic rebound or CB whatever else might effect it.
to this:
LG We would have to correct each reading LG for calibration, ...

CB Again, irrelevant ...

This latest complete wiping of the slate is very annoying and I don't accept that tactic. I don't really know why I continue to engage you...

Now, we are all in agreement that (a) the annual average global temperature cannot be directly measured. It has to be defined, and then calculated from a sufficient number of actual data that can be directly measured. (b) the underlying direct measurements each have an associated uncertainty, and the derived annual average global temperature also has an associated uncertainty.
Simple questions -- How wide is that error bar on the annual average global temperature estimated today? How wide is it on the annual average global temperature estimated on the much sparser, much less reliable records we have from the year 1900?

The GISS analysis has about +/-0.15oC inside the 95% confidence band for the late 1800's and +/-0.1oC 95% confidence for year 2000. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/
The standard error on the CRU curve at the link below is abouit the same, +/-.15 in the begining, +/-.1 at the modern end. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-1.htm
This does allow wishful thinkers to hope that the measured rise was not .8oC but in fact it was a bit over .5oC, but then you need to grant the pessimists that it may have been over 1oC.
-- Coby Beck (remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")

"LongmuirG" wrote in message

Coby Beck responded somewhat defensively: [Cut it all -- it can be read above]
Coby, Coby, Coby! Quit hiding from yourself. You are better than this.
Now, we are all in agreement that (a) the annual average global temperature cannot be directly measured. It has to be defined, and then calculated from a sufficient number of actual data that can be directly measured. (b) the underlying direct measurements each have an associated uncertainty, and the derived annual average global temperature also has an associated uncertainty.
Simple questions -- How wide is that error bar on the annual average global temperature estimated today? How wide is it on the annual average global temperature estimated on the much sparser, much less reliable records we have from the year 1900?

Well, reading the web page cited earlier, "Our estimated error (2?, 95% confidence) in comparing nearby years, such as 1998 and 2005, increases from 0.05�C in recent years to 0.1�C at the beginning of the 20th century."
So it would seem they *have* considered that error in readings is larger the farther back one goes. Is there any reason to think the error would accumulate from year to year, providing a 'false trend'?
Interesting that their temperature measurements show a 'flat' period from the late '40's to the mid '70's. Any speculation on if this is a result of WWII and long-lived atmospheric contaminants (e.g. dust) from weapons testing or volcanic activity or...??
daestrom