[geo] Testing brightwater
Hi It seems to me that Brightwater is suitable for 'homebrew' testing, and indeed would greatly benefit from this work. Water bodies are very variable by salinity, choppiness, cloudiness, temperature, etc. Is it possible to create a set of standard tests which can be conducted by people to test BW in their local area? A bucket filled with seawater in California may behave very differently to a bucket of seawater in Scotland. I would imagine that it would be possible to test the idea using a 2 gallon bucket, a bicycle or car tyre pump, clock, standard diffuser nozzle and a ruler with a coin taped to it (for checking cloudiness). A colour- comparison chart may also be useful. Sure, these would be very basic results, but they would be very helpful if (for example) we discovered that water near river mouths was better than water from open ocean shorelines. I'm guessing that all the equipment that wasn't available in an average home would be able to be bought and posted for likely a lot less than 50 dollars. I may be offending the sensibilities of those with big labs and high standards, but my guess is we could quickly gain some very useful data on this with the participation of some people on this list, and maybe beyond. Who knows, maybe this could become a very popular experiment in schools and colleges? A -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Testing brightwater
Andrew, Bright Water is not a new concept. It was proposed as a means to reduce hull drag some time ago. Funding is the issue On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.comwrote: Hi It seems to me that Brightwater is suitable for 'homebrew' testing, and indeed would greatly benefit from this work. Water bodies are very variable by salinity, choppiness, cloudiness, temperature, etc. Is it possible to create a set of standard tests which can be conducted by people to test BW in their local area? A bucket filled with seawater in California may behave very differently to a bucket of seawater in Scotland. I would imagine that it would be possible to test the idea using a 2 gallon bucket, a bicycle or car tyre pump, clock, standard diffuser nozzle and a ruler with a coin taped to it (for checking cloudiness). A colour- comparison chart may also be useful. Sure, these would be very basic results, but they would be very helpful if (for example) we discovered that water near river mouths was better than water from open ocean shorelines. I'm guessing that all the equipment that wasn't available in an average home would be able to be bought and posted for likely a lot less than 50 dollars. I may be offending the sensibilities of those with big labs and high standards, but my guess is we could quickly gain some very useful data on this with the participation of some people on this list, and maybe beyond. Who knows, maybe this could become a very popular experiment in schools and colleges? A -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- *Michael Hayes* *360-708-4976* http://www.wix.com/voglerlake/vogler-lake-web-site -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] On what research I would suggest
I'm not seeing much agreement between this graph and others I've seen. The graph below seems almost bistable in behavior. The graph at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#Overall_view tells a very different story, it seems - and this concurs with other sources I've seen. Whilst I'm on the phone, I may as well mention something else interesting I stumbled across today. Apparently there is a new theory to explain the PETM, namely the 'hot blobs' (yes, that's the proper name) of magma rise up and lift the crust. If that crust happens to be clathrate-covered ocean floor, this causes depressurisation and dissociate of the clathrates, followed by methane excursion. A blob spreading out over a few 10's of K yrs would neatly explain the pulsed temperature rises of the PETM. A On 19 April 2011 22:27, Glyn Roberts glynlrobe...@gmail.com wrote: Gene: Wow! It seems you -- sorry, I mean Dr. Scotese, has a very dark vision of the future. You say: This is Scotese’s data and his interpretation. I hope you're not putting words in Dr Scotese mouth. Could you please point out where he claims the current warming trend is due to plate tectonics. I don't see any published works from him making any such postulation - peer reviewed or otherwise. BTW. His publications are found here: http://www.uta.edu/ra/real/editprofile.php?pid=145#7. Your drawing shows the temperature flipping about 8 times in half a billion years. It seems a cosmic coincidence that we hit another such flip just as humanity's GHG footprint soars. Theory should be predictive. Take these two points for example: In 1937 Guy Stewart Callendar published an early quantitative analysis of AGW [1]. He wrote: “It is well known that the gas carbon dioxide has certain strong absorption bands in the infra-red region of the spectrum, and when this fact was discovered some 70 years ago it soon led to speculation on the effect which changes in the amount of the gas in the air could have on the temperature of the earth’s surface.” Then in 1965 the Report of the Environmental Pollution Panel, President’s Science Advisory Committee [2] “By the year 2000 the increase in atmospheric CO2 will be close to 25%. This may be sufficient to produce measurable and perhaps marked changes in climate. [AGW] could be deleterious from the point of view of human beings.” 1. The artificial production of carbon dioxide and its influence on temperature, Callendar 1938. 2. Restoring the Quality of our Environment, President’s Science Advisory Committee, 1965 Glyn On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 3:25 PM, Eugene I. Gordon euggor...@comcast.net wrote: Glyn: Here is another earlier version of Scotese’s data going back several hundred million years to which I had added time on the horizontal axis. He has made corrections to this graph which is what is shown on his current website. Several points to note. Once the temperature started to increase from an ice age low of actually about 10 C after -520 MA it continued to increase to actually 25 C. (there are two blips to higher temperature at about -250 MA and one about -60 MA These caused major die outs.) It always did the steady increase; sometimes taking millions of years to increase through the full temperature range but it never stopped increasing until it asymptoted at 25 C. It is currently at almost 16 C and rising; having risen from about 12 C in the last 10,000 years. I am interpreting nothing. This is Scotese’s data and his interpretation. If one reads Scotese's website one can conclude that the changes are triggered by motion of land masses, which of course influence ocean currents. The GHG independent component of warming is happening now and heading toward 25 C. I am not claiming that current warming has no GHG component. I did not say but will say it here that the AGHG dependent component of the warming is not nailed down, except to say that some of the warming since late 1700s is no doubt geological. I suspect we will wait another 20,000 years at least before the temperature asymptotes at 25C. Long before that life as we know it will end. Perhaps only Antarctica will have a viable ‘conventional’ life style. The rest of humanity will live in domed cities, using thermonuclear power generation or equivalent. One major asteroid hit such as occurred at -250 MA near the Antarctic will end it for virtually all life on earth. Over 95% of species disappeared at -250 MA. As you may know that 10 to 15 km asteroid cracked the earth’s crust and triggered a million years of volcanic eruptions throughout Siberia. Hope this helps a little. I have not read his book but that might help: Palaeozoic Palaeogeography and Biogeography by Christopher R. Scotese, W. Stuart McKerrow -gene From: Glyn Roberts [mailto:glynlrobe...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2011 12:12 PM To:
[geo] CDR on PBS
NOVA tonight on Public TV at 9pm. Power Surge. Includes segment on air capture. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Testing brightwater
Michael, I'm not saying the production of microbubbles is a new idea. However, I'm not aware of any programme of testing of the behaviour of such bubbles in real waters from around the world. The key issue is residence time, and we simply don't know how that will be affected by the myriad types of waters which the technology could be deployed in. Whilst testing in canals and reservoirs under the pretext of reducing evaporation makes a lot of sense, any deployment at scale will be in the sea, and so testing seawater is logically a better test. My suggestion is that by concocting a simple series of 'homebrew' experiments we can gather some really useful data which can help the modelling of this technology tremendously. I for one would not know whether the silty waters of the Thames estuary would make better microbubble waters than the bright green biologically active water of Portsmouth harbour. Do you have any data which could answer this question, without recourse to an experiement? An experiment should settle the matter. Furthermore, an experiment would raise public awareness of, and interest in geoengineering. It's not practical for school children to launch balloons into the stratosphere, but they could be very helpful in blowing bubbles into buckets of seawater with a bicycle pump. It may not be sexy, but my guess is it will be a good test to gather some crude raw data for later modelling. A On 21 April 2011 01:38, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com wrote: Andrew, Bright Water is not a new concept. It was proposed as a means to reduce hull drag some time ago. Funding is the issue On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.comwrote: Hi It seems to me that Brightwater is suitable for 'homebrew' testing, and indeed would greatly benefit from this work. Water bodies are very variable by salinity, choppiness, cloudiness, temperature, etc. Is it possible to create a set of standard tests which can be conducted by people to test BW in their local area? A bucket filled with seawater in California may behave very differently to a bucket of seawater in Scotland. I would imagine that it would be possible to test the idea using a 2 gallon bucket, a bicycle or car tyre pump, clock, standard diffuser nozzle and a ruler with a coin taped to it (for checking cloudiness). A colour- comparison chart may also be useful. Sure, these would be very basic results, but they would be very helpful if (for example) we discovered that water near river mouths was better than water from open ocean shorelines. I'm guessing that all the equipment that wasn't available in an average home would be able to be bought and posted for likely a lot less than 50 dollars. I may be offending the sensibilities of those with big labs and high standards, but my guess is we could quickly gain some very useful data on this with the participation of some people on this list, and maybe beyond. Who knows, maybe this could become a very popular experiment in schools and colleges? A -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- *Michael Hayes* *360-708-4976* http://www.wix.com/voglerlake/vogler-lake-web-site -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
