Comments fermiparadox has made

Graphic

Here is a graphic about the decreasing oxygen since about 1990. It is in pretty good agreement with the assumption that every additional CO2 molecule means about 1-2 molecules of O2 have been replaced.

It's the CO2 we have to worry about, not the lack of O2. I doubt there are enough fossil fuels reserves to make a dent that matters for O2.On Oh good grief posted 1 year, 3 months ago 6 Responses

Interview on KQED

I listened to an interview with S&N on KQED yesterday morning. Actually, it did not sound that bad, and they did say that we should not wait for the 'technological pony' (I liked that expression). They also suggested that government action is needed to make for example solar energy cheaper.

The interview can be downloaded from here. Maybe I should listen again.
On The death of 'The Death of Environmentalism' posted 2 years, 1 month ago 16 Responses

wind and solar?

Not bad indeed, but it does not mention wind and solar energy at all. Isn't Utah a pretty sunny state?
On Experts to Utah: Climate change is real posted 2 years, 3 months ago 4 Responses

Recycling Aluminium from Al2O3 produces CO2

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium#Aluminium_metal_pr ...

The crucial part is this:

This carbon anode is then oxidised by the oxygen, releasing carbon dioxide. The anodes in a reduction cell must therefore be replaced regularly, since they are consumed in the process:

    O2 + C → CO2

Bad idea

I have seen this before, and I think it is a very bad idea. The production of Al from Al2O3 consumes a lot of energy, and the process used to date produces CO2, even if the electrolytic process uses renewable energy. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium#Aluminium_metal_pr ...
On A new idea for how to transport the stuff in cars posted 2 years, 6 months ago 28 Responses

petition

There is a petition to throw off junk science from Fox News.

Lets see if Rupert is serious.On Rupert Murdoch launches effort to green News Corp.'s operations and programming posted 2 years, 6 months ago 14 Responses

More facts, but easier to understand

I think I agree with parts of this posts but disagree on others.

The public does needs more facts, at least as long as the deniers spout their nonsense in the public. When someone in a casual discussion says AGW must be false because he read in a Newsweek article by a professor from MIT that 95% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor (you can insert any other canard here, there are tons of them), then people need to know an answer to it. But it needs to be simple enough for laymen to understand, and exactly that is missing in the media. Sure, you can read realclimate and read that it is not just a matter of percentages, but that is over the head of most people not familiar with the matter. It needs to be much easier to digest. And a scientist with authority will have a much larger effect than a hobby blogger like me.On They've got it, they shouldn't be ashamed of using it posted 2 years, 7 months ago 15 Responses