You won't sell them in this decade, ROM.
Charcoal grey is the ONLY roof colour in fashion.

ROM,

If you want to make the extreme warmistas choke with rage, and I gather that you would, point them at what the aerospace sector is doing about algal fuels.

Algal is what comes after 'bio'. In 2006 the scientific consensus at a Sydney Green Skies conference was that algal grown octanes could get to the testing phase by 2020 as a blend. They were in fact tested in a twin engined jet in early 2009, which included throttling down and then re-opening the engine running on the partially algal sourced blend at altitude.

Algal is important in that it is not climate or sunlight dependant. It can be grown in tanks. It doesn't displace agriculture or food production.

And not only does it not release fossil carbon, but in some of the pathways being investigated, it consumes it. Synergies between algal farms and the excess carbon dioxide of power plants are under study, some of it significantly backed by the fossil fuel interests too.

It is true that there are prodigious hurdles to be overcome. That's something that our species seems to be good at. It is true that ultimate success isn't assured, but all the signs are very good at this stage. The replacement of fossil refined fuels with algal liquid fuels of similar characteristics for all surface and air transport would have profound consequences for the integrity of fuel supply and head off the issue of peak oil for those that believe in such.

It would also head off the political opportunism that blights the entire issue of AGW. None of us here seem to be in favour of political or economic engineering to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I am certain the public agree too.

Time scale? It was 2050 last year. The mood of the sector is swinging around more toward 2025 for the proving up of the fuels and processes that would produce energy equivalence by volume with aviation grade kerosene, requiring no modification of existing engine and airframe designs, and the rapidly growing replacement of fossil sourced kerosene from 2030.

Meanwhile, I'm hoping for deep snowdrifts in Copenhagen in December. While I agree with the science concerning AGW I don't think I'm alone in despising its exploitation by those promoting potentially disastrous social and economic interventions.

Well I reckon I give this thread another 7-8 pages before it's closed. Already some comments starting to creep in there and won't be long... Pity because this thread could have been OK for reading if there were no comments posted on people's thoughts. If people could post a link and an explanation of the thread and no comments this could go for a while.

Pity really. This debate obviously needs to happen but because this is a censored forum, it will never be able to carry on freely. People are too emotionally connected to this for some reason. Don't know whether this is because of pride, real fear(I doubt), or "digital bravery" that people get on the soap box and let loose on others. I would think that if this debate was held face to face, the language and posturing would be subdued somewhat.

Unfortunalty I see a lot of people on either side being sucked into a propaganda war over who intrests matter more. ATM pro AGW camp is winning but the anti is fighting back. There are good ideas on boths sides and I dare say that many of these ideas would be put into aciton if they were taken away from the climate debate and others would standout as not viable.

I was listening to the radio the other day while a man was talking about energy production in scandanavia, what he said would make perfect sence in most times without having to justify it by putting it in the AGW corner. Basically in the country where this is in place(sorry I can't remember) it is illegal to dump rubbish into landfill. It must be sorted and incinerated to produce power or recycled. He was picturing all the major towns, cities having these waste burning power plants and even smaller towns that can use farming residues and garden clippings to power our grid.

To me, this makes sence as it kills two birds with the one stone, reducing/stopping land fill and lowering dependance on fuels to power our grid. It should not have to be done in the name of climate change and it's fickle claims. It should be done for pure efficiency. If our changes to power and waste managment were centred about waste minimisation and getting the most our of resouces we use, we would get a lot more stuff in that makes sence. Having a tax(ETS is a hidden tax) to justify such things as wind power and solar makes it clear that more development to make them cheaper. I am not against these things but they have to compete to be viable.

Also building efficient houses should be encouraged buy lower fees and less paperwork. These things can done without having put them into the AGW corner and the political fight that comes with it. Nobody would argue that it would be better to dump rubbish into a hole and roll it till it's flat. Nobody would say it is a bad thing to build an energy effient house. or to drive an efficient car.

However people must also take a good hard look at their lives and see if they actually NEED all the have. A family in innercity Melbourne has no NEED for a diesel 4x4 period. Even if they like to go out camping every once in a while. There is opportunity to hire an offroader for the times when you NEED them otherwise use a smaller efficent car. Same goes for people who only use their car to commute to work. Why have a powerful car capable of travelling all the way to Mildura on a tank. Why not use an electric car that could quite easily get you there and back on a charge? These cars should be cheap to register and cheaper to buy. Just because you may do a long trip every so often, doens't mean you have to have it. People in larger places can hire things so why not? The money you would save on fuel and running costs would more than pay for the odd hire of a vehical to get you away from the big smoke.

I know this os also off topic but it seems that many of the changes coule be common sence if they were implemented on thier own instead of bunched up with some very dodgy stuff that could do some real damage to our economy and way of life.

I wrote up quite extensively on Algal oil and the Algal oil technologies at least a year or more ago in the a former and discontinued AGW thread.
[ Discontinued for the same reasons the current AGW thread is in suspension! ]

Algal oil is the real possibility in the energy stakes as it allows the continued use far into the future of the heritage and current technology piston engines.
Our major planetary mobile power sources consists of piston engine technologies of all types so as we have seen on a couple of occasions in the last couple of decades, any disruption to the supply of fuels that are specific to the piston engine leads to a great disruption of our transport systems and consequently to our society and our industry.

Something similar to Algal oil is an essential as historically it will take possibly at least a century before piston technology as a type of mobile power generation source will be phased out even if we began to do so as of now.

And there is absolutely no sign that anybody is as yet trying to enforce the abolition of piston engines, although with the AGW movement, anything is on the cards!

And for anybody wishing to follow up on the history of Algal Oil or Algal Biodiesel research [ "Algal Biodiesel" sounds far more impressive than just plain "oil"! ] here is a very extensive and detailed read entitled;
A Look Back at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Aquatic Species Program: Biodiesel from Algae

It was from the US Dept of Energy "Algal Oil" publications that I got most of my info from some three or four years ago.

Yeah I remember looking into it years ago. Great idea and doesn't tie up food producing land to produce fuel. Much higher yield per square meter and contant produciton due to a very short lifespan of the algae. Only things that were slowing it down was figuring out how to efficiantly harvest/process it.

Found a good clip on it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ih-DLurcZA

Accelerating ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland

Greenland:


Antarctica:

"The two authors of the study have an explanation of the context of their findings at RC (guest post): http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...m-into-context/

Grumbine also has an informative post, and rightly highlights that
“there is more than one way for the Antarctic to lose mass.” (http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/10/antarctic-snow-and-ice.html) Note that Tedesco (one of the study’s authors) responded as follows (presumably via email) on Grumbine’s blog (2nd comment):

“Let me also catch the opportunity to mention that the results of our work have been extremely simplified and not all results have been reported on many blogs. In the paper we do report the lowest melt in the 30-year satellite record this past austral summer but we also examine the causality of the low melt and find that it is related to the belt of westerly winds that encircles Antarctica. These winds are expected to weaken as the ozone hole is projected to recover significantly during the next 25 years and, as a consequence, we expect that temperature increases over Antarctica will become stronger and more widespread.

We also note that our results do not contradict recently published results on surface temperature trends over Antarctica: the time period used for those studies extends back to the 1950’s, well beyond 1980, and the largest temperature increases are found during winter and spring rather than summer, and are generally limited to West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula.”
(Source Bart Verheggen post on WUWT)

In actual fact Mike I would be glad to see the Antarctic temps start to rise as they are a little already, as it is a clear sign of global cooling setting in as per Svensmark Cosmic ray theory, as the rest of the world cools due to higher albedo of low clouds, the Antactic warms as the low cloud albedo is less than that of the huge white ice and snow areas of the Antarctic. So bring on the Antarctic warming please, so we can cool down a bit more!

To balance those 'news' reports, i guess a 'its all happened before' article is required -

"Discussions on the Viking settlements on Greenland are seen from time to time on WUWT, and its is often in the context of the Medieval Warm Period. While this article from the University of Alberta is a few years old, I thought I’d provide it for our readers interest..." http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/26/on-the-vikings-and-greenland/

Why an Emissions Trading
Scheme (ETS) is not necessary

http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/PPP-printing-version.pdf

As tropical storms ebb, climate debate kicks in
Slow hurricane season for U.S. was the same across the globe, scientists say

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6697013.html

Another month of rainfall statistics:



Probably slightly drier than average, but not bad for an El Nino.

Sorry Mike, but I fail to see what that has to do with the thread topic?

AGW predicts a reduction in rainfall for the southern parts of Australia.

Monitoring rainfall is relevant to the accuracy of these predictions.

Its also relevant to predictions from some such as yourself that its all just natural cycles and that we should be seeing wet weather sometime soon as these cycles change.

As I said Mike, I fail to see what your post has to do with the thread topic. It is not a news article.......and I hope we are not getting down to one month for AGW proof , maybe we could take each week and day as proof of warming or cooling or dry or wet! :wave: This does not match at all with your past statements on the shortness of periods!

And here is last 30 days global temperature patterns:



And the circulation patterns:



A persisent high pressure circulation in SE Pacific has pushed cooler air from Antarctica towards South America. Persistent southerlies have pushed cooler air from the Arctic into USA, and persisetn low pressure in NE Atlantic has pushed warm air into the Arctic

Looks like normality, Mike, with odd warm and cool bits everywhere, again proves nothing really. If you want to post world monthly stats I suggest you start another thread then we can all discuss the worlds last month weather, which may prove of some interest, but this thread does not seem the place for these posts imo...don't know what others think? Just seems to clutter up this news post thread with info that is best put eleswhere in its own thread again imo.

That map would belong in a global obs thread or something. I dont see what it has to do with AGW though

LOL, while Mike has the thread diverted with rainfall records... seems some have taken a two way bet on the future Oz rainfall...pg93, Garnaut Climate Change Review, covering precipitation models for Oz...apparently some models say a rain reduction, some models say a rain increase...


.