Energy@Berkeley: Solutions for Global Warming

[ForexReviewsCentral]

He is gifted. 

[33noa33]

HELPING NATURE FOR BETTER CLIMATE

Use mighty power of nature

In the northwestern Australia, we have huge tides,

huge deserts, huge evaporation and huge dry rivers and lakes.

Huge 12m tidal erosion can revive old dry paleo dormant once mighty rivers, creeks and lakes,

desalinate the country and change deserts to rain forests to provide more rain across Australia

World population is growing rapidly and we need more energy, food, land and water.

see: Mitic CLIMATE ENGINEERING

[RichLOAguy]

The solution is very simple. Start off with floating cables in the ocean and start seaweed (algae) growing.

Start with 1 acre then make it 2 acres, then keep it going.

Every company producing emissions could sponsor enough "ocean seaweed rainforest" to alleviate their guilt and punish them.

Eventually we could have Hundreds of thousands of acres of seaweed farms. This life would alleviate carbon footprints and allow filter.

If a country has a drought they can eat a few acres, or fuel.

[Thymonico]

Are you talking about using their photosynthesis to absorb more CO2?

If so, this is a difficult idea. The maintainance of 100 000 acres of floating algae tubes, would be costly and a practical effieciency barrier.

Algae technologies are great! A much better alternative than miscanthus, corn, sugar (c-4 photosynthetic land plants) for producing bioethanol! :)

I think we need a fission based energy. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR), Terrapower and conventional ones are great!

[RichLOAguy]

No. No tubes.a barrel floating in the ocean will grow an algae farm around it, ask any sea captain. Basically floating balls attached with wire, and seeded with seaweed. Should require little to no maintenance.

The Photosynthesis would play a part, but the life forms themselves would be made of carbon.

Also. Fish ponds covered with algae support double the amount of fish so would help fish populations.

Also.100 000 acre seaweed frams could be towed to distressed countries for food or fuel.

[stopglobalwarming08]

Dr. Steve Chu is awesome! thanks UCBerkely for posting this video!

[chewbaca1989]

I propose the Religious global warming advocates stop eating beef. Case close.

[Baurzhan1963]

Global warming of a climate, is the fact which is not requiring proofs.

The problem of global warming and it is obviously necessary to plant as much as possible trees. can not you plant trees, we are already doing it for you.

Each person, should in the life, construct the house, grow up the son and plant a tree.

[chewbaca1989]

It's all a scam 650 Scientists shot it down at a recent Global Warming Summit.

$cam.

[JonThm]

The world started cooling in 2005: Go outside more!

[Gilmourist]

Intellegent people as Dr. Chu are not politically biased. Infact, he cares too much about his own studies to be swayed by anything other then the scientific facts. As for IIBuGzeeYY: do you have anything intelligent to say; or did you just come in here to shit out of your mouth? Go back to your video games, and don't involve yourself until you have studied the issues.

[IIBuGzeeYY]

No one takes Berkeley serious, because it's such a Liberal infested shit hole.

[mkeeeee]

IIBuGzeeYY, where education is valued and intelligence is prevalent, there tends to be a bias toward the far left. Perhaps had you received a more liberal education your grammar would be adequate. Perhaps if you received an education conscious of the left's open-minded ideals your thought wouldn't be clouded by politically-driven ignorances.

[JonThm]

I thought Berkley did REAL science: Not PR for nuclear power.

[seaplaneguy1]

This is a problem of government wanting to transfer risks they believe are real, which may not be real, onto we the people. To solve this debate, we all need to sign on the bottom line...put our money where our mouth is. If you believe in global warming, then if you are wrong you loose your 401k etc. If you are right, then I loose mine. No tax should be placed on any co2 now. The solution for co2 is withing 5 years.

550 ppm? It was that in the 1800's, 1940's and every 70 years.

[seaplaneguy1]

Dr. Chu does not see the big picture. He wants to use government to force his beliefs on the world. Has he considered that co2 may actually be very valuable? Does he factor in the increase growth rate due to higher co2? The internal contradiction of his thesis are many. This is a matter of risk and investments. He want to tax us to force an investment to a product he believes will help, but, ironically, he will not put his retirement into the project, but wants us to fund it....sorry....

[JonThm]

You mean Berkley don't know how to do nuclear fusino from water? What are you, a primary shool for metal retards?

[arcanekrusader]

Global Warming™ is a fraud.

[johnnyboypdq]

STUPID STUPID IDIOTS. Intellectual retards. The reason they respond they way they do is called "Funding Findings!"

LOOK, if they have any REAL proof of the Earth becoming warmer out of and beyound normal natural occurance Please demonstrate. No you may not use THEROY, there MUST BE PROOF of acutal interaction of the current state of AIR/Oxygen and the pollution that is enteracting. The natural Ice meltig and tropical variances/cycles occuring are just that. Take the money away and POOF GONE!

[psusac]

Just out of curiosity - you wouldn't happen to be a Christain would you?

[nigelelsass]

Scientifics articles are exchanged on Springerling, Elsevier or others... and how many recent scientific peer reviewed articles disprove or question GHG lead global warming??? guess... zero

FACT: the Northeastern passage is opening

FACT: the icesheet coverage is decreasign

FACT: permafrost and glaciers are melting

FACT: there is a one in 1000 chance that it is simple coincidence that the increase in GHG and warming happen simultaneously without a connection between both.

[RocketManF4]

nigelelsass Your wrong temp goes up or down and co2 FOLLOWS it by an average of 800 years , now that after not "simultaneously"

[nigelelsass]

The observation of A being the cause and B the consequence does not invalidate that B can in some cases the cause and A the consequence (e.g. fire and temperature where also high temperatures can lead to a combustion).

True that mostly temp lead. We know why from the Milankovich cycles. After temp trigger a CO2 increase, temp however continue rising as a feedback from increased CO2 concentrations. We have more CO2 in the atmos. than Milankovich cycles would peak at... what do you think is next?

[RocketManF4]

nigelelsass

AGWers started the whole co2 thing on what the ice core records showed co2 and temp raising at the same time. Now in 2003 they were getting more detail out of the ice core records and it was discovered co2 always follows temp by anywhere from 400 to 4,000 years but NEVER leads. So the AGWers needed to regroup and feedback was invented. Only problem for a decade temp has not increased and has dropped for 3 years now. And when co2 increased the most (1940 to 1980) temp dropped

[nigelelsass]

First: AGW was first researched by Svante Arrhenius in 1896 based on his discoveries of the greenhouse effect and based on the work of Fourier (1780-1830). This is when the theory started. Feedback such as the albedo effect or methane release from the permafrost is real and measurable. Sweden for example has been monitoring peat bogs for over 30 years. The feedback is not invented but it is rather the discovery of an existing phenomenon.

[nigelelsass]

On the top of that, El Nina about which we know enough slows than the present waming over the last 5 years and is about to end its trend.

Your assumption that CO2 increased the most in the 1940-1980 is wrong. The yearly emissions where from 5 Gt CO2 per year to 20 Gt CO2 per year as opposed to around 30 Gt/year now.

Are you suggesting that because we increase now CO2 that temperatures will not follow and that the greenhouse effect (see high school physics - spectrophotometry) will not apply?

[RocketManF4]

nigelelsass

look at the last decade no warming at all only a temp drop. Co2 is a minor trace gas

[nigelelsass]

Basic physics: the concentration determines the scale of the effect per unit, NOT whether there is an effect or not. Would you drink a diluted arsenic solution as it is only a "trace element"?

The IR scattering by CO2 can be experimentally established (cf absorption/emission spectrophotometry). CO2 although measured in PPM (per million) explains the difference in the Earth energy balance compared to the Stefan-Boltzmann law (30°C).

[nigelelsass]

Basic statistics:

A short term trend does not invalidate a long term trend. Only the observed end of the long term trend does. Any of the last global temperature record from the last 5 years has been higher than any of the of the global temperatures from 1880 to 1985.

To put it in simple words: the long term trend is still there.

[RocketManF4]

nigelelsass

you said "Basic statistics: A short term trend does not invalidate a long term trend"

Ok then look long term and when you do you will see NOTHING unusal about the last 100 years

[nigelelsass]

Yes, nothing unusual... except the CO2 concentrations higher than any point in the last 400,000 years.

Do you REALLY expect a double of greenhouse gases concentrations in the atmosphere without any greenhouse effect? Is this really what you believe?

I find it unusual that despite our large SOx emissions and soot emissions which have a net cooling effect that temperatures have still increased.

Apart from that, the stratosphere is cooling as analyzed by "Lastovicka et al".

[RocketManF4]

sure co2 is a green house gas but a very minor one, if it was the driver, temp would never stop going up

[nigelelsass]

Can you just explain me why "temperatures would never stop going up" then? You are not making much sense.

Yourself you mention the correlation graph between CO2 and temperature... why would then be correlated so closely if they are not interacting?

Otherwise you need to bring a reason why paleoclimate reached such high temperatures if CO2 had little to do with it and why CO2 concentrations where high during this time.

Solar radiation certainly can't explain the warmest periods...

[RocketManF4]

Easy co2 is an effect of temp increase as the temp goes up it takes the oceans around 800 years to warm and release co2, same on the way down co2 continues to raise when temp falls and 800 years later the oceans cool and start to absorb the extra co2 then co2 also starts to fall.

[RocketManF4]

The temp in your world would never stop as in your world co2 is the driver, thats why

[nigelelsass]

You are ignoring the melt of permafrost and change in the short carbon cycle.

But back to the problem:

TILT AND ORBIT DO NOT PROVIDE ENOUGH ADDITIONAL HEAT to explain pleoclimatology record. You need to come up with something... I am still waiting....

[RocketManF4]

nigelelsass

Long term is not the last 100 years lets go back 100,000 years or so

[nigelelsass]

Yes, right let's go back to 100,000 years or so... Is there any event other than increase in GHG concentrations which can explain the recent warming (as everything has a cause)?

[RocketManF4]

solar ,orbit and tilt

[nigelelsass]

source please... the sun is monitored by satellites since the late 60's, early 70's and no increase in solar input has been observed. If the sun would be the cause, the temperature difference between day and night would also increase... this is not the case.

For orbit and tilting, no source show anything... unless you have one...

[RocketManF4]

so you are saying you are do not know about the orbit and tilt of this planet changing over time?

[nigelelsass]

No I challenge you to find a phenomenon which explains clearly the temperature increase since 1880 with a clear attribution.

We know very well about orbital and tilt phenomenon. They do not explain the opening of the north eastern passage, the melting of glaciers in Switzerland or Glacier national park, etc.

[nigelelsass]

TILT AND ORBIT DO NOT PROVIDE ENOUGH ADDITIONAL HEAT to explain pleoclimatology record (with temperature swings of up to 10°C) You need to come up with something... I am still waiting....

[nigelelsass]

TILT AND ORBIT DO NOT PROVIDE ENOUGH ADDITIONAL HEAT to explain pleoclimatology record. You need to come up with something... I am still waiting....

And no, no large increase in solar radiation explaining very high past temperature has been found....  You need to explain WHAT AMPLIFIED the minor effect of orbit and tilt... I AM STILL WAITING

[RocketManF4]

nigelelsass

co2 is a very minor trace gas water vapor is the main green house gas and it does everything co2 does only a lot more. Solar can increase clouds which can affect our climate in many ways. Orbit and Tilt are not minor effects you must be thinking of co2

[nigelelsass]

If this would be true, a single cooling event such as a volcano with a short term cooling effect could have right away stopped the whole cooling period. This has been experimentally researched by "Soden et al" in 2002 and proven wrong.

Removing the CO2 in the greenhouse sample or adding other greenhouses leads the water vapour to stabilize at +/-1% after 50 days.

Water is not a driver as experimentally proven (also through GCM models) and not a long lived greenhouse contributor.

[RocketManF4]

nigelelsass

show me any repeatable experiment that has ever proven a increase in co2 by 100 parts to 1,000,000 does anything or more than very little

[nigelelsass]

Well a perfect living example is the planet Venus where the radiation input is not twice the Earth temperature and has close to no water vapor. The absolute temperature are close to 3x those of the Earth despite the Stefan Boltzman telling us the blackbody temperature (without greenhouse effect) should be much lower. 96.5% of Venus atmosphere is CO2. Without CO2 Venus should show temperature lower than Mercury which gets 10x as much radiation per m2 as the earth... there is your proof.

[RocketManF4]

nigelelsass

Your "living example" is wothless

1. Venis has 95.6% co2

2. Earth has .036% co2

So your example make no sense to a normal person, but to a AGWer who is despertate to find any proof it will work for you

[nigelelsass]

As with the tropospheric cooling observed from satellites we know that less CO2 is reemitted to higher layers of the atmosphere. This is a measured effect of CO2.

So at least you recognize the greenhouse effect of CO2.

Why then don't you trust experimental spectral absorbtion for its quantification? Especially with your claim that positive feedbacks are not relevant, you should prefer linear models, shouldn't you?

What about placing two bottles in the sun? 1 filled of CO2, 1 with N2?

[RocketManF4]

nigelelsass

You say your are from Germany but you sure sound like a brain dead person from Berkeley, did you study there? Stop all the big talk and talk like a normal person. Bottom line co2 always follows temp by an average of 800 years. When you use higher contractions of co2 aka 100% it has nothing to do with real life and that is where I live. And by the way I also have "paper" but I do not rub it in everyone's face

[bbjornst07]

Brain dead is a very purile thing to say don't you think? Isn't Berkeley the place where about a half a dozen chemicals were discovered and currently on the periodic table? Isn't Berekely ranked as the 3rd best University on the planet only so to Stanford #2 and Harvard #1? I have never seem someone with so much temerity as you. Sure we can't always prove something but to sit while something might happen and our grandchildren may suffer for it. I want to prevent it.

[dwijaa]

bbjorn all the best. Never mind the detractors. No statue was ever erected for a critic. All the best once again. FRM: National Institute of Technology, India

[nigelelsass]

For the calculation of the climate sensitivity based on experimental data (what you are asking), "Rahmstorf Stefan" published a study in 2008.

The climate sensitivity has been well established. As no increase of this scale has ever been humand triggered before the industrial revolution there is no empirical proof beside other planets.

Computer models allow builders to know whether a bridge will hold before building it. Computer models for climate forcing are as robust.

[RocketManF4]

nigelelsass

The truth is computer models are able to include only two out of 14 components that make up the climate system. To include the third component would take a computer a thousand times faster than we now have. To go beyond the third component requires an increase in computer power that is so large only mathematicians can comprehend the numbers. So your computer models are not "ROBUST"

[nigelelsass]

I would be very interested where you found this statement. We are here speaking about models which are for a first approximation linear up to the quantity of steam in the atmosphere. Nothing complicated here. This is a simple energy balance model. We are here only speaking of a first result of the climate sensitivity based on the main greenhouse gases.

[bbjornst07]

Sure it would take one so much faster then we have now. But we can model each component individually. LBNL is working now to develope a software that can accurately calculate the energy efficiency of buildings. The file is enormous and has been in development for some time. We are currently working with the University of Minnesota on this project to make what you imply is impossible now quite realistic.

[nigelelsass]

Actually you do not even need a model as the equations can be "home solved" by physics students.

All you need is a spectrophotometer to measure the IR scattering.

If you are not convinced by the effect of CO2 on IR rays, try looking at a flame through a tube filled with air. Then retry the same experiment with the same tube filled with CO2. Then you will understand what we are talking about very visually. Any high school might have the equipment for that.

[RocketManF4]

nigelelsass

your "home solved " model is worthless.

a tube 100% full of co2 is not what our air is made up with. try it with a nix of 280 parts then a nix of 380 parts and guess what NOTHING different

[nigelelsass]

This replicate the isolated effect of CO2 as non greenhouse gases do not anyway react with IR. To represent the likelihood of an interaction of a photon on IR length with an IR gas you need to have a sufficient amount on CO2 molecules on the path. A tube with 280 ppm but 1m length would not represent the kilometers of atmosphere. For this reason, a higher concentration is a first better approximation.

[nigelelsass]

This is how physics is told and is accurate enough. Spectrophotoscopy focuses on the effect of specific gases.

There is nothing wrong with isolating the effect of a single gas to outline its effect.

[veryfuck]

the global warming hoax

it annoys me how i see smart and educated people getting brainwashed by the idea of "global warming caused by humans"

sure global warming is possible but its insane to think that whe humans have caused it in the last 100 or so years.

look in the sky at that big yellow shining ball

global-warming is a big hoax and a big business.

the ultimate goal is carbon tax

[JonThm]

The Earth started cooling in 2005: I shouldf have called in when I was in San Fransico

[wilbert1755]

How many people have you seen walking with Signs asking for dirty water air and more pollution?

[wilbert1755]

All them degrees and still stupid? You can educate an Ignorant and he will become educated. Educate and Idiot and he will become an Educated Idiot. He is Not Climate scientist..

[mikemikef]

When you call names you have run out of facts.

[wilbert1755]

Name Calling like Deniers, Shills. etc..?

[mcanical]

"All them degrees.."

Coming from someone who can't structure a sentence to begin with...

Lets move on to someone who doesn't want to destroy the Earth while keeping their head in the increasingly hot sand.

[wilbert1755]

F*&6 Chu!

[JonThm]

Sorry I did not call in to see you when I was in San Fran. GW is PR by nuclear power, and now the world cools natrually!

[sdz1986]

tecnology keeps going on for the people in these days which is good but it will only work if makes provid people think whats in it for me politicians think the same if you are living in a free society or not money rules thats why real problems can not be solved becouse we can create energy which cost nothing to give energy to the whole world which don't cost nothing but in this monetair system they would never get it but its getting so big that they can not fool people anymore atleast i hope

[CelestialTina]

I think it's hilarious how people like to act smart when in fact they don't know anything. I don't think anyone's impressed by the terminology you picked up from random anti-GW movies, so please spare us and be quiet. You are the 21st century's equivalent of people who refused to accept the world is round.

[hrdwrkstudent]

Thanks Animalll2003lll. I'm very impressed by your Nobel Prize in physics, and your obvious expertise in atmospheric science. I'll believe you instead of all those scientists who spend all their work days studying the issue. JonThm's comments make no sense.

[Animalll2003lll]

here's some infos:

influence of CO2 on warming is logarithmic (less and less influence passed a certain amount), google image the curve. Gore's graph in an inconvenient truth is misleading: CO2 level FOLLOWS temperature, he just didn't specify, and most ppl take this graph as the best proof for human driven global warming. but it's not and climatologists are much more nuanced than what you hear in the news. AGW is an amplified paranoia, just like ufos and nuclear fear. debate appreciated.

[Animalll2003lll]

this talk is: blablabla hahahaha blablabla danger! (ooouh) pause blablabla hahaha injustice (ouuh) blablabla...

CO2 has a tiny influence on the climate. doubling nowaday's CO2 level would at most increase temperature by 1 C. the temperature has always fluctuated. middle ages were much warmer than now and 17th century was much colder. global warming is mostly a public paranoia, a trend.

[JonThm]

Nature does it! The world has bee ncooling since 2005: Look out of the window! Whne I was in Californai thsi year, it was 20 C cooler than normal.

[JonThm]

GW was fiction from nuclear power, designed to kill. Why is Berkley doing their PR, for free?

[JonThm]

I am in California in MAY!