Send a Message
to ldavidcooke

Comments

11

Joined

Feb 23, 2008

ldavidcooke Profile

Recent Posts

Alternative Energy

Mass. study: Wood power worse polluter than coal

Hey All, There are multiple things involved here. If it were possible to harvest trees similar to the natural way forests replenish, with the canopy dotted with spots of old trees, which die making way for under-story seedlings to replace them, the harvesting would not need to be an issue. Hence, you would want to harvest the large trees within a 100 foot square with a minimum of 400 feet between harvests. If the square of circle is not clear cut then it would open up the opportunity for young offspring of the removed tree to regrow. There is another issue regarding the burning of the wood as well. Most current systems are simple bio-mass feed of chop/pellet/manufa cturing sawdust(mill-waste ) to the bottom of a furnace like firebox. If instead the waste were burned in a fluidized bed meaning that the mass is suspended in the updraft air feed would be an improvement. If we went further, such that the firebox was surrounded by the bio-mass as in a gasification system with the final byproduct of charcoal, fed to the fluidized bed the burn would be both more efficient and complete. Coupled with say 12-15 foot above the ground, 100 foot diameter, harvesting, the saplings would be preserved and the greatest part of the mass would be collected. Done in a patch work with 400 feet separating harvests would be a very smart idea. At least this source would be fossil fuel free and would allow for no more then a 25% reduction while providing for a 25% supplement to the power utility feed stocks... If this were employed via commercial/industr ial farming techniques with 5 year rotations. (Meaning every 5 years you could go back in and harvest the next 100 foot plot, would mean that every plot would be about 25 years old when harvested and the youngest stock would be no less then 5 years. By the same token since you would return to the zone of the old harvest, if there were a problem it could be resolved with something like an air drop reseeding.) The best part is if the harvesting was done via a blimp/zeppelin platform then the ground does not need to be disturbed. Done properly this is a good alternative. The desire would be to employ biomass digestion, the harvesting of methane and then the gasification of the remains. Providing a two part solution with one portion going to transportation and the second part going to power generation would be a very effective solution set and could be applied to all bio-mass sources. Cheers! Dave Cooke  (Jun 11, 2010 | post #1)

Hopes For Vote On Offshore Drilling Dwindling

So why not use on-shore drilling instead? The environmentalist concern is the possible release of oil that would reach the beach. What if the well head was on dry land and the foot of the well was off shore? Simply put, the main issue would be the distance of pipe that would have to be run to reach the off shore resources. Cheers! Dave Cooke  (Jul 31, 2008 | post #1)

Science / Technology

Iron And The North Pacific - Can It Affect Climate Change?

Hey Shinningelectr0n, Basically, any hypothesis is a knowing of something you do not yet know. If you observe a process and decide to entertain a possible conclusion about that process in essence you are suggesting you already know what the process is. It is not until you either sample or experiment with the process that you develop the knowledge about the process. As for "this" process it was suggested nearly three years ago in a knock down drag out discussion on RealClimate.org. The conclusion there was that there would not be a sufficient increase in natural processes to process the 7.35GT of anthropogenic combustion of fossilized carbon. Apparently, now in light of the additional data from the SeaWiffs experimental satellite package and the oceanographic Vertigo experimental results the data in regards to the volume of biologic processing that would occur in relation to iron fertilizing appears to have been in error. It would appear that the old data suggested that the 6.5% increase in phytoplankton processing of carbon necessary would require much greater amounts of iron then could reasonably be added to the oceans. (The discussion had revolved around the use of iron filings; however, by the time they would be distributed they would have broken down to iron oxide.) Now in light of the new research data it appears there might have been some serious discrepancies... The most interesting result of the work here is the discovery of the volcanic basalt, iron and magnesium appearing to increase the biologic processes more then the iron oxide. (Though the article suggests the iron oxide would dissolve faster, the increase in the biologic activity was greater in the presence of the volcanic nodules. It might be worth a few years of experimental efforts in the current Dead Zones of the large oceans to see if the increasing Deadzones can be reduced simply by adding a bit or iron to the water. Dave Cooke  (Mar 22, 2008 | post #6)

Global Warming

Climate warming is naturally caused and shows no human in...

Hey browser; You are asking the easy question, if you are talking the original source you would be talking about the left overs from at least 1 supernova that provided; the silicon/iron rock along with other miscellaneous materials that formed most of the inner planets and gaseous materials such as methane and ammonia of the Gas Giants or that formed this solar system. If you are talking about the fossil fuel source you would be talking about the conversion of dead plant material within the last 250 million years. Most of the carbon on earth was originally in a gas and was converted to cellulose and hydrocarbon oils in the process of plant growth. Any plant materials from periods longer then that has probably resulted in the concentration by bio-process carbon to have been swallowed up in the mantle. This is likely due to tectonic plate subduction. This older carbon is released along with water vapor during the release of magma in a volcanic event. Did that help, or did I miss your point? We want to remember that just because there may be more carbon being introduced to the current bio-sphere the annual carbon cycle between land and sea exchange about 201 Giga Tons emitted by non-human sources with about 208 Giga Tons taken up by non-human sources. (Keeping in mind the approximate 7.5 Giga Tons of fossil carbon being introduced to the surface annually by human processes.) This would suggest that the earth is fully capable of handling the current annual amount generated by human activity. The possibility for problems occur when the total annual emissions exceed the total annual uptake rates. Were this to occur you might get an increase of carbon in a gas form in the atmosphere. Where scientist have difficulties is defining if the apparent build up is caused by excessive generation by human and non-human sources or is it caused by a reduction long term uptake by human and non-human carbon sinks. (If you consider the average human contains several pounds of various carbonate or hydrocarbon contents and the population has increased 1.3 to about 6.3 billion in the last 100 - 150 years there appears there would have been a shortage in carbon without the fossil carbon addition... Sorry, I thought there might have been a joke somewhere in there...) Dave Cooke  (Mar 4, 2008 | post #30)

Global Warming

Climate warming is naturally caused and shows no human in...

Hey All; You have to keep in mind that if warming is occurring that the earth's systems of heat transfer may move blocks of heat rather then a continuous flow. Hence, it is possible that either AGW or ACC can be part and parcel of the total global warming. The most important point to take away is that there is a differential, suggesting the difference between surface a atmospheric heat is separated by some form of phenomena. This does not remove the possibility of AGW, it only suggests we do not have a good understanding of the heat flow processes of the earth's natural systems. On the other hand, it appears that a question remains as to whether or not the noted increases in atmospheric CO2 can be tied to human activities. So far there does not appear to be a strong correlation between burning of fossil fuels and CO2, though there does appear to be an association of coincidental change. As the very same data used to prove AGW also can indicate a reduction in natural uptake/subduction processes. If the proportional generation by human activities can be proportionally tied to the atmospheric CO2 increase then there might be a case. So far this remains a major impediment, IMHO. Dave Cooke  (Mar 3, 2008 | post #22)

Orlando Sentinel

Evangelical leaders host 'creation care' summit in Orland...

Hey Mr. G: Two small comments: First, you may be unaware of the influx of large illegal immigrant families entering the US which is of concern to many here. The question appears to be, is it incumbent on wealthier countries to make up for the lack immigrants have in their originating countries? I seem to remember an great number of wonderful people who braved terrible conditions and long stays in slums to try to find a country that could provide land rights which their home country denied. Matter of fact, my maternal family came from Sheffield. The second thing to discuss is the size of families is usually driven not only by religious standards; but, include the number necessary to simply try to retain a family unit. When you look at what is happening in Africa with the loss of many lives due to religious differences and children without parents due to Immuno-Deficient virus's, I can understand some of the motivations for large families. We now know what causes children. To deny those who have achieved the child count necessary to reflect the parents heritage, the right to limit the size of their family, based on a philosophy, rather then a necessity, is rather pitiful, IMHO. Especially, if the goal of that philosophy is to be brandished as a club against those who may believe differently. The nice thing I have noted recently is, typically, once a family has been formed in-country, within two generations they adopt the morals of their adopted land. The problem then becomes one of where grubbing for money or power run contrary to the long term thriving of the global community of man. As a separate observation, I find it interesting when I look back at history that the average family size in the early 1900's here in the US were in excess of 5 children with families having as many as 10-12 siblings to try to increase the ability to boost the family unit income. Things were a lot different then, with nearly 20% of women or children dying within a few years of childbirth. The benefit of our fossil fuel burning technologies has been both a better education and better tools which allow for a greater survival rate. The need to have as many children in the "West" has fallen, as the survivability has increased. That certain cultures have not matched this change can be related to many things; from political machines that keep the populations in ignorance, to the lack of basic conveniences (a shared burden is a lighter burden), to Power, Economics, Health Conditions, Religion ..., pick one. That CO2 is generated by humans burning fossil fuels or not is inconsequential, the larger issue is the resources on the face of the earth being sufficient to the long term survival of the diversity of life on the planet. Basic conveniences joined with education will have a bigger impact on future generations then any amount of Global Warming. Cheers! Dave Cooke  (Feb 25, 2008 | post #41)

Orlando Sentinel

Evangelical leaders host 'creation care' summit in Orland...

Hey Truth!: Alas, no, I am attempting to get the maximum life from the time left. I am beginning to see evidence of a more balanced approach in the pop technical press and hope to see the same elsewhere in the future. The conclusion I have reached is that eventually things would come out right even without my tweaking. Hopefully, my tweaking can help to protect those less able and at the same time point to the responsible action that those that are able should take. It is relatively amazing to watch the Same Ol' AGW tripe getting trotted out at every step over the last 7 years and to now see some rather interesting data start to be shared. Of current interest was a recent article regarding the Sargasso Sea. It appears the combination of decaying cellulose and sulfites left over from bio decay is getting a bit of play. The added material forms what is called "CDOM" which is a form of organic soup. For some reason it is being attributed to the loss of surface phytoplankton and nutrient starvation in the top meter or so of the ocean. What the scientists appear to have missed is the increase of UVB in this region because the Ozone readings have changed from an average of more then 350 Dobson Units in the 1960's to less then 250 Dobson Units at the same latitudes today. When you consider that nearly 90% of the phytoplankton can be found in the top 3 meters of the ocean this loss could be significant. It still remains to be seen as to how the annual contribution of man being approximately 4% to global Carbon Cycle accounts for greater then 35% of the ACC process. When you review the balance of natural outgassing and natural up take having a difference of nearly 10 Gt you would think that there would be a little room for human participation. However, if the processes were changing with some years greater and other years lesser uptake then it is possible that Humans could overburden the system at times. That the CO2 levels detected do not vary more then 0.1% begins to suggest that the measures have nothing to do with the natural annual variation. This has a tendency to bring into question the root cause. When you have an economic down turn, more death, less fires there should be a signature showing up in the measures. So far, there does not seem to be much of significance. Dave  (Feb 25, 2008 | post #35)

Orlando Sentinel

Evangelical leaders host 'creation care' summit in Orland...

Hey Mr. Giblets: I guess the first thing you might need to do is share this with the Catholic Church. The basis of the doctrine against the use of anti-contraceptive s is usually linked to these directives. Add in the man made, one belief system, as being the only path to God and you have sowed, the grounds of contention with a basic premise of conflict, power. Secondly, your "loonieness " is part and parcel of this article and is not OT. The point is with 1/6th the current population even with the usage at the current levels carbon emissions would be well within the capacity of the Earths Biospheres capabilities to process. Given the North America and Western Europe account for about 30% of the Global total (roughly 2.3 Gt Carbon) at 1/6th the population this would equate to about 0.4 Gt Carbon. Even had the population doubled over the last 100 years we are still talking about less then 1 Gt. If you want to discuss the science I would be delighted; however, this thread is not the place. If you have a comment related to the positions shared in this article or your perception of the of the validity of these view points I would be willing to entertain that discussion here. Dave Cooke  (Feb 25, 2008 | post #34)

Orlando Sentinel

Evangelical leaders host 'creation care' summit in Orland...

Hey John; I have no issue with any organization that wishes to participate in reducing the imprint that human development places on this planet. Hopefully, we as a branch of the of the tree of life, desire to be a significant bearer of fruit and not an over burdened twig that is pruned due to an imbalance between demand and resources. Hence, that we endeavor to address the resources necessary for the successful development of the species, we must also review our demand. Are we to be a scourge on creation, consuming all of its resources within a small generational window? Maybe, it is more appropriate we look to balancing the types of resources and the size of the population as a means to align ourselves with the will of God. The issue, as I see it from a religious point of view, is what did the Trinity mean when we were to, "multiply and fill the world"? Are we to multiply until we are stacked up against each other as cord-wood? I suspect not, it would appear appropriate that instead we are to find the right balance of population and resources for the millennium of peace promised to us. We have been told that as God would provide for a Sparrow that he would provide for us. Maybe it is time we learned to be Sparrows. That we may need to limit our population is one leg of success for our species. If our religious organizations wish to moralize the processes of using resources then they may also need to consider the moralizing of the demand caused by their adherence to command "to fill the world" as well. My personal concern is that the idea of "filling the world" maybe an interjection by man and may not be of God. It is entirely possible that the idea of growing greater in quantity than all other groups is that of power, and power held by a single belief, being not of God at all? More then anything this is my main concern, the belief that might makes right, is wrong. Right, should be defined by the spirits leading and not by greed or dogma. It appears that God in his infinite wisdom has offered us many paths; but only one gate. Rather then search out differences we need to seek our commonality and fulfill our role in his creation. Dave Cooke  (Feb 25, 2008 | post #31)

Orlando Sentinel

Evangelical leaders host 'creation care' summit in Orland...

Hey Pete; The good news is that I am still here. The bad is that the time may be limited. The damage from the flu appears to have been extensive. Through the use of a new device (CRTD) from Medtronics I have been offered a few more years to share where I can. Since the closure of the Climate Change forums, most of my time has been on the UKWeatherWorld Forums on the Earth and Climate Sciences Discussion thread and I dabble in the Analysis when feeling especially technical. I have met some great folks on the other side of the "pond" and am very glad of the opportunity. I find that I do not line up well with the folks on the RealClimate site in that Dr. Schmidt and the team there had taken a hard nosed approach and will not tolerate dissension from their views. They have shown that if the data you shared is not addressed in their data sets they will ridicule you off the site. On the other hand the good folks at Climate Audit, though more tolerant have their own ax to bury and are not interested in exploring subjects that are not inline with the topic of the day. At UKWeatherWorld we have a broad spectrum of view points along with a stronger hand at moderating, keeping the discussion more on topic. The biggest change over the last 2 years has been my change of browser to Sea **** providing an opportunity for me to offer a better quality posting. I stumbled across this site via a Yahoo news article in the Monterey County Herald. I hope you are well. I is amazing to see so many folks here from the old days. Obviously, the names have changed; however, neither the writing style nor the dogma have varied much. Seems that "Nanny" has not shown up yet. I guess I will just have to keep monitoring. It is great to see you here. Hopefully, the Topix service may consider grouping news articles into categories to allow focused discussion groups. It will be interesting... I will try to check in daily to see if there may be climate stories of interest and will try to modify my yahoo page to link to this site. As to an on topic comment, it is amazing to me that no one has questioned the point about the reduction in plant kingdom up-take... Dave Cooke Dave  (Feb 23, 2008 | post #27)

Orlando Sentinel

Evangelical leaders host 'creation care' summit in Orland...

It is interesting to see religious organizations getting involved in Climate Change discussions. Many a person having eschewed religion have installed science in it's place. The result is that science becomes religion for many of these individuals. The problem is when people try to moralize science. Science has little to do with right or wrong. It is simply the documentation of phenomena and being able to predict the phenomena. This documentation is gained by either physical or logical proofs and is reviewed and validated by experts in the field. The facts behind climate change is that there appears to be am imbalance in atmospheric constituents that can result in higher surface atmospheric temperatures. Yes, there is evidence that the increase could be linked to anthropogenic, or human activities. However, this evidence is not confirmed by direct evidence and there is an equal possibility that the root cause could have an alternative source. For instance, the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can be due to increased levels being generated by the animal kingdom organisms on the surface of the earth, or it can be generated by the reduction in the up-take by the plant kingdom organisms of the earth. The issue that is presented by the popular press and environmentalists, is that the number of animal kingdom organisms have increased their output per individual. What everyone seems to fail to address is the increase in specific populations of certain animal kingdom populations. Since the early 1800ís, the human population has increased from approximately 1.3 Billion to over 6 Billion. Yes, there appears to be an increase in atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and what appears to be an increase in atmospheric surface temperatures. However, this appears to be an association, there is not a correlation. A correlation suggests that for every cause from an input there should be a proportional effect on the output. As the scientists have noted, the problem with establishing this cause and effect is related to a function similar to a hydraulic accumulator. The input change gets partially stored within other processes. However, scientists have not yet been able to define these other processes. Instead, it appears that environmentalists choose to pluck the low hanging fruit rather then actually perform the research. The problem may be the fruit is not the Honeybell Tangelo they claim it is; but, a Redstar Peach. Granted humans are increasing the carbon concentration in the current geologic eon; however, part of the ability to support the current human population at the current standard of technology is dependent on this added carbon. It is possible with todayís technology to reduce the amount of carbon at an equivalent cost, through the use of some alternate energy systems, solar, algae based oils (raised on non-arable land), methanol and methane. So the move towards this newer technology may be a good one. What concerns me in this article is that the tools environmentalists are using are what appears to be alarmist and circumstantial. What concerns me is when innocent people take the emphatic drum beat of innuendo to be fact. These innocents then convert this drum beat to a moral stand rather then a logical decision. I applaud religious organizations getting involved in addressing a means to reduce the human impact on the planet. In short, that which we can do to try to preserve creation is a worthy undertaking. However, to moralize the process, or to participate in defining the cause without participating in finding or applying solutions is appalling to me. When it appears that much of the problem may be linked to the increase in human population, it may be time for our religions to consider if we have reached the goal of having multiplied and filled the planet. In short, maybe it is time we considered it is time we stop multiplying...?  (Feb 23, 2008 | post #20)

Q & A with ldavidcooke

Hometown:

Graham, NC