here's another one

Hero999 said:

Interestingly after the initial period of cooling after the eruption I can't remember hearing about a warm period been recorded after it. Volcanic winters are well documented but I've never heard of a volcanic summer funny that considering the amounts of greenhouse gasses released from eruptions.

Click to expand...

Yup I was thinking about their impact on the ozone layer (pick a problem any problem). Which also seems to be bunc but..

It turns out that volcanoes do emit CO2 but not enough to matter.

INFLUENCE ON THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT:

Volcanic eruptions can enhance global warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere. However, a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human activities each year than by volcanic eruptions. Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons/year, whereas other sources contribute about 10 billion tons/year. The small amount of global warming caused by eruption-generated greenhouse gases is offset by the far greater amount of global cooling caused by eruption-generated particles in the stratosphere (the haze effect). Greenhouse warming of the earth has been particularly evident since 1980. Without the cooling influence of such eruptions as El Chichon (1982) and Mt. Pinatubo (1991), described below, greenhouse warming would have been more pronounced.

Click to expand...

Actually volcanoes are interesting in that they also produce a lot of sulfur dioxide. Now sulfur dioxide is a pollutant and creates aerosols that later fall to earth as acid rain, which generally kills stuff.
However, the aerosols have a significant cooling effect while airborn. They reflect sunlight.
Sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants has been reduced and is slated for further reduction. Due to its inevitably forming destructive acid rain, that's a good thing. But from a global warming perspective, whether from volcanoes, power plants, or car exhaust sulfur dioxide cools the earth.

So it turns out that volcanoes aren't as polluting as I thought.

Well most of the CO2 in the atmosphere is generated by microbes in the sea anyway.

If golbal warming is caused by human activity (and in my opinion there isn't enough evidence to say that it is) then why can't we just release non-toxic reflective compounds in to the atmosphere?

Another interesting thing is that although CFCs are greenhouse gases they ozone they destroy is an even stronger greenhouse gas so their net effect isn't global warming.

I tihnk theres still some confusion over 'climate change causes'. Hero, you're right about the main debate being about whether it IS human activity, or just the natural cycle of thhe planet, or some combination of the two (in which case, just how much of an effect we have). But climate change is merely the warming of the earth and the associated effects, caused by certain gasses. Although CO2 isn't the most potent greenhouse gas, its by far the largest by-product of our lifestyle. Everything produces in abundance, all living matter included.

The gases that 'freinds of the earth' and other oganisations try to curb are generally harmful to humans and animals, NOT the planet as a whole, we just don't produce enough of them. Those are the 'polutants', CO2 isn't particularly toxic compared to them. Volcanoes produce more pollution than anything else, I have no idea why you said otherwise...just because the secondary effects of an erruption cool the earth, doesn't make them any less polluting....

My personal take on the subject is that we have simply destabalised the carbon cycle. Its a basic idea that we were taught in school from an early age. If you look at the graphs for long term atmospheric carbon concentrations....its virtually a sine wave, waxing and waning as the earth heats up, causes forest fires..lets more CO2 into the atmosphere blocking out the sun, cooling it down, then plants can grow again, taking up all the CO2 they love. I >vaguely< remember reading about the damping constant of that graph, and how it only takes a very small addition (or removal) of CO2 to set it off.

So I guess its really a case of reducing atmospheric CO2 at the cost of producing much more toxic substances, but in vastly smaller quantities, or stop the polutants, at the cost of more CO2. Ultimately: Enviromental damage (affects most animals/trees), OR climate change (affects everything). The above ultimatum is a bloody good argument for nuclear power

Blueteeth

Ps. Although it probably goes without saying, I'm just ranting and spouting opinions/idea's here. I have little evidence to back up anything, so as always, biiig pinch of salt with my posts.

Blueteeth said:

Volcanoes produce more pollution than anything else, I have no idea why you said otherwise...just because the secondary effects of an erruption cool the earth, doesn't make them any less polluting....

Click to expand...

I knew that volcanoes are the worst polluters on the whole but I got confused with their CO2 emissions.

One thing that interestes me is that the anthropogenic emissions of methane seem pretty high considering the amount you would think it produced naturally.
**broken link removed**

One thin I question is has some of the natural methane emissions been replaced by anthropogenic emissions?

Suppose a huge area of wetland is cleared in Cina and used for rice cultivation. Previously the methane emissions would have been classed as natural but now they are classed as anthropogenic because it resulds from agreculture.

Hey,

I must say I didn't even begin to think about methane...and that does look like a LOT of man made gh-gase. The only thing I can think of is (in the west) is refuse landfills , when they decay it produces god knows how much polution, and the ones that are gaseous of course just go into the atmosphere. Burning it is an option to sustain power requirements, gah I wish i could remember the process, something like 'plasma injection' (completely burns all refuse maximising energy output) . But that would still produce CO2, in the same, if not higher levels, just little else. As for less developed countries, could be any number of things, and while the west produces the majority of CO2, I'm willing to bet that its the less developed coutries kicking out the methane. Be it from agreculture or non-regulated chemical/manufacturing processes, because the west has greater restrictions for emissions deemed harmful to the enviroment (CO2 NOT being one of them).

I *assumed* methane was produced in such low levels as to not make much of a difference, but I know it occurs everywhere in nature at the most basic level, I honestly didn't realise that we were kicking out that much!

As for the cultivation thing? I guess this would venture into 'definitions' and pigeon holing the sources of emmissions. 'Natural' emmissions, although considered part of the cycle of life, could be curbed by intervention. Although......assuming (big 'if' here) if the emmissions are similar after cultivation, then from a emissions point of view, nothing has changed, except maybe a from a legal point of view (not that china will introduce laws like that any time soon).

I know the interest in this has gone up a gear in the past few years, I still can't find any original reports by researchers though...just second/third/forth hand accounts and sparse figures from the media, over simplified to the point of being ridiculous. If anyone has a link to a recent research paper, I'd be very interested.

Cheers for that hero999 Always good to discuss this sort of thing, and I'm sorry to the OPfor waffling on about general 'climate change' when its really just about new Solar Panels

Blueteeth

Blueteeth

Blueteeth said:

I *assumed* methane was produced in such low levels as to not make much of a difference, but I know it occurs everywhere in nature at the most basic level, I honestly didn't realise that we were kicking out that much!

Click to expand...

We are producing loads of CH4 compared to the proportion of CO2 emissions. There again methane isn't as stornger greenhouse gas as CO2 so it's not to bad really.
**broken link removed**

Methane oxidises to CO2 in the atmosphere over time but looking at pie charts can be misleading, methane is insignificant to CO2 which is negligible compared to H2O.

Another source of methane in developed countries is waste water treatment. Some methane is burnt as a fuel but unfortunately most sources are fairly dirty so it can't be used as a domestic fuel but it is burned in special boilers in power stations if enough of it is available to be worth the effort.

I'm an environmentalist but I hat greenpeace. I think they have some moronic ideas. They ***** about people burning fossil fuels but then whine when alternatives such as wind power and energy from incinerating waste; we need to get our energy from somewhere!

Hero999 said:

...........I'm an environmentalist but I hate greenpeace. I think they have some moronic ideas. They ***** about people burning fossil fuels but then whine when alternatives such as wind power and energy from incinerating waste; we need to get our energy from somewhere!

Click to expand...

I tip my hat to you sir for both the above statement. And frankly I don't think I need to add anything to it Except to say that 'animal rights activists' are generally the same way.

-Blueteeth

try it...

I have done many work with solar power specially in remote mountains to repeat radio signals for data and voice, a very high tech thing and expensive as solar panels are not masive sales..., but I also did a real solution that lower my bill a lot...my home has a electric water heater, at the beginning I installed a timer and adapted to 220vac, it low the bill right away making the heater work for short periods of time like 6 times a day, but then, I installed a panel on the roof and conected to the water source, i mean not a electric panel, I built with cooper pipe a radiator, put it inside a black box, installed on the roof and isolated with a window , add a tank just for holding water ,then the water output goes to the electric heater inside my home and now, the water coming from the roof is so hot that the water heater thermostat never calls for power, even in cold days..may be sound complex for now, but is quite simple, actually the hard part for me was play plumber, I am electronic to the bone...
For now , i am working to make a a/c work by high pressure air, as air at high pressure from a scuba tank circulate thru a stainless steel high pressure pipe, the pipe get cold and even freeze, the the fan blows the cold air as the normal A/c, but have some issues with check valves(they act like diodes) because this is close circuit, the runs to a second scuba tank, then I am trying to make the cycle with out using much a compressor and lower the use of electric power...and fighting to lear to program pics, when i went to the university z80 and 8031 processors was top of the line, no I can't belive a pic come with a/d conv, self oscillator, etc....I was working on industrial instrumentation and control for many years in minery and never updated my mcu knowledge..but well I am back heating my brain like the panel on the roof...

it low the bill right away making the heater work for short periods of time like 6 times a day

Click to expand...

You shouldn't have bothered, turning down the thurmostat would've had the same effect.

What's the cimate like where you live?

Does it freeze and snow in winter?

Those solart panels won't work in winter in colder areas and without anti -freeze they'll freeze solid.

Have you thought about water cooling the air conditioning?

You use water to cool the air con then pass the water thorugh the solar pannels so you'll be using the waste heat to heat the water.

weather here

Well, weather here never get to frizing conditions, I am in florida, usa, and low temp days are about 45f but summer is hot, always over 85f, in cold days the solar water heater work perfect, the thermostast on the electric water heater is on, just in case, never turned it off, just it dont call for power as the inside water temp is high, so basicly it dont use electric power , just if is so cold and cloudy...but man, from a montly bill of 160 dollars down to 70 dollars times 12 months...is money and i dont know what you mean with wasted heat, the house heating system runs from hot water circulating under the floors...but we use it like to months a year in winter....the cold water idea did not work, i tryed cooling water with peltier arrange, but was not effective way...

I was talking about cooling the hot pipes on the air conditioner with water.

45°F? I didn't think days could be that cold in Florida, 45°F is about 7°C which is average for the south of England, mind you a cold day here is literally freezing. I suppose you get more more winter sun than we do, it's normally cloudy here.

weather

Yes, well, we hit 45 like 3 weeks ago for about 3 days, then 55 to 68 for entire week, the it come back to 50 for 2 days ...it snow up north and cold wind make to miami, even the keys...but normally, the cold come with nice clear days with no clouds at all....well, for the a/c , i am just trying new ideas and concepts...not fixing or improving the old compressor system...

<3 Australia's weather, well it's no good in some places, but generally its great

there won't be one solution to the energy but solar is quite promising along with conservation, we human beings are very wasteful with power.
nuclear ? well yes it may not be as polluting but what do we do with all the radioactive waste ? and it can be very risky - aka the Russians - Chernobyl ? the only safe nuclear power is the sun = solar power.
another key is to reduce transportation, just the fact of producing power on site can save energy as well

How come nobody has come up with a better way of using nuclear power? Got be a better way to get electricity from radiation, besides heating water for a steam turbine generator. Really not a field of interest to me, always seemed odd that only a small amount of the fuel is used, to turn the same power generating turbines used by any other kind of power plant.

Not to mention nuclear "waste"? There are still a lot of energetic particles wandering around in that waste. Can they be captured by "solar" panels?

Probably not overly efficient or practicle, the radiation changes almost any material it's near given enough time, and semi conductors are not radiation stable. Who knows though, I'm no nuclear physicist =)