Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

typodupeerror

## Comment Re:Headline should say... (Score 1)786

As I've stated, not only does the title seem correct, but the colums in the spreadsheet itself are titled CO2. And again, where do these numbers come from? That seems to be something you haven't dealt with nor acknowledged. There is only so much fuel burned in the US and magically we know what that number is. In the US, it is about 140 billion gallons of gasoline for example. We also happen to know how much of that turns into CO2 (about 19lbs per gallon). So, anyone can figure out how much CO2 was created in the US. And guess what? The numbers seem to correspond closely to your spreadsheet. Ah, the magic of mathematics.
Here is a little brochure put out by the DOE and I linked this earlier. http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html
Magically, they think about 6-7 billion tons of CO2 was created. That is a little shy of the 9 billion tons you cited, but ok - let's go with that.
I also liked your selective reading above on the analysis of the eruption of Mt St. Helens. First you denied that 60% per volume of the magma can be converted to CO2/SO2, then I shot that one down. Now, your new one is that a sampling of the eruption (one data point) is all the gas that was emitted. But that is just par for the course with you. Read it more carefully next time. Also, math helps here too. 1 cubic mile of magma converted at that rate emits a tremendous amount of CO2/SO2. Since one cubic mile of magma weight about 45 trillion pounds, it doesn't take much mathematical ability to realize how enormous the OVERALL eruption is (on the scale of 100's of billion of tons of CO2/SO2).

## Comment Re:Headline should say... (Score 1)786

Ah the analysis that is clearly labeled CO2 is labeled incorrectly in multiple locations and is titled 'Preliminary_CO2_emissions_2010.xlsx'. That's a lot of mislabeling. LOL Couple that with the Department of Energy numbers that match up pretty well too, but I guess their data is mislabeled too. Even though you can calculate their data using known numbers like how much gasoline the US used (~140 billion gallons) and we know 1 gallon of gas converts to 19 lbs of CO2. But, let's forget that and use magic internet numbers that are 3.5 bigger than any analysis out there because they are all MISLABLELED. All of this simply on your say so and the quackery agenda.

Let's see how much gas fraction can potentially yield from magma shall we?
From http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm05/fm05-sessions/ and I quote
"Closed system ascent degassing calculations show that the volume fraction of gas increases to 8 vol% at 4-5 km and reaches 50 vol% at 1 km, where final solidification begins. The gas fraction can potentially increase to >60 vol% during solidification. Allowing for gas separation during extrusion, these results are consistent with observed dacite vesicle fractions averaging 25 vol% (Pallister et al. this session). Ascent degassing calculations also predict melt water contents similar to values measured on rare glassy dacite fragments last equilibrated at depths of 1.2-1.8 km (Mandeville this session)."
Hmm, seems the experts think that gas fraction can increase to 60% of volume. Isn't that amazing?!?

## Comment Re:Headline should say... (Score 1)786

You should check your own data. The Analysis in the spreadsheet is of CO2 levels, not Carbon. And guess what it shows?!? The data shows there was only 9 BILLION metric tons of CO2 emissions. GO LOOK AT IT YOURSELF and not some incorrect summary. That is a bit higher than the department of energy estimate of 6 BILLIION tons, but within a consistent range. Your 33.5 billion metric ton number is complete BS.

Also, your analysis of Mt St Helens is ridiculous. You are citing flows of magma on the surface (lava and so on) and occasional emissions. Not the gas emitted in the eruption itself. Only a small part of the in the magma magma chamber is erupted as solids on the surface. Most volcanoes have several cubic miles of magma in their magma chamber. Of that, the majority of the magma, up to 60% BY VOLUME, is turned into CO2/SO2. That's where the explosive eruption comes from.

## Comment Re:Headline should say... (Score 1)786

Volcanoes don't erupt all their magma as particles on the surface. The way a volcano works is it has a large magma chamber that contains several cubic miles of magma. Some of this material erupts to the surface in varying forms including lava, while the vast majority is expelled as gas (a mix typcially of CO2 and SO2). Depending on the composition of the magma, up to 60% of this volume can be turned into gas (from the study I cited previously on Mt St Helens). This usually happens in violent eruptions.

The 242 millon tonnes number you cited is merely incidental emitions of volcanos. There is a reason that number is so low. This is from all dormant volcanos where there is little to no magma is being converted into gas. A good example of that is the eruptions on Hawaii and elsewhere. Most of the magma flows on the surface as lava.

Of course there are various LARGE improbable numbers put out about human emitions on the internet. That is why it is quackery. The real numbers are several single BILLION tons of CO2 and that is it.

## Comment Re:Headline should say... (Score 1)786

Not really. In this context, giga is a prefix for billions of tons. As I've already pointed out in another response, 1 cubic mile of magma can convert up to 60% by volume into CO2/SO2. Since CO2/SO2 is about 2.5 times heavier, that means about ~70-80 trillion pounds of gas can be produced by 1 cubic mile of magma. Since the typical eruption involves several cubic miles of magma, you get hundreds of trillions of pounds of gas (or 100's of billions of tons of gas).
Also, as I stated, the US and China produced in their vehicles alone less than 3 billion tons of CO2 (300 billion gallons burned where 1 gallon of fuel generates about 19 lbs of CO2 per gallon) . This the single largest source of CO2 in the world. The estimate of about 6 billion tons of CO2 is produced per year is pretty close to reality. Granted, it might be closer to 7 billion tons, but even then it can't even come close to a volcano.

## Comment Re:Headline should say... (Score 1)786

I'd love to see how you came up with your numbers.
Let's do a little math for you - ok?
The largest contributor of CO2 in the US and China is in their vehicles. The US and China burned about 300 billion gallons of gasoline last year. Each gallon of gasoline contribute 19 lbs of CO2 to the atmosphere. That is ~2.85 BILLON tons of CO2. That is it! The biggest source of green-house gases by humans ONLY produces less than 3 BILLION tons of CO2 in its entirety.
Now, let's consider how much CO2 is contributed when a volcano turns magma into CO2/SO2 - still with me?
1 cubic mile of magma weighs ~45 trillion pounds. Up to 60% BY VOLUME can be turned into CO2/SO2 which is ~70-80 trillion pounds . That means that one volcanic eruption, which typically involves several cubic miles of magma produces - ready? 100's of trillion pounds of CO2/SO2 which translates into hundreds of BILLION tons of CO2/SO2.

## Comment Re:Headline should say... (Score 1)786

The the best estimate of CO2/SO2 emissions from the Mt St Helen's eruption was estimated during a series of presentations on the erupation at about 0.2 gigatons (200 BILLION tons). http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm05/fm05-sessions The world-wide estimate is about 6 BILLION tons. http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html The problem with you quacks is your numbers aren't based in reality. You are literally a bunch of quacks who live in a word of fantasy. Your number aren't based on any real esitmates or scientific data.

## Comment Re:Headline should say... (Score 1)786

Just more quackery. Mt St. Helens during its eruption put out 200 BILLION metric tons of CO2/SO2. Humans contribute today, at our peak, 6 BILLION metric tons of CO2 per year according to the Department of Energy. You just have no idea how large a volcanic eruption really is.

## Comment Re:Headline should say... (Score 1)786

Humans have probably little to no impact on Global Warming. So if people built too close to the sea and it rises, I guess they'll have to move and build elsewhere. Despite what you think, people are mobile and don't have to sit there and drown.

## Comment Re:Headline should say... (Score 1)786

Yeah, Global Warming has always been quackery in search of more chicken littles to say the sky is falling. One large volcanic eruption puts out factors more CO2 than all the CO2 put out by human beings since the start of the industrial revolution until now.

## Comment Re:Prediction (Score 1)283

I'll make this short. You ARE delusional. No pressurized craft can get to Mars in 6 months. We just don't have the technical know-how to build rockets that energetic (or the energy sources/fuel) to go that fast. The best case of a Hohman transer orbit is 9 months. The most likely case is 11-12 months. After that I just ignored the rest of what you had to say because it is clear you don't have any knowledge about this and live in a world of science fiction. Let me be clear, we will never successfully go to Mars in our liftetimes (the next 50 - 100 years). You may be right and some bonehead nation or corporation will try to do it and everyone will die in the attempt. That will end all attempts until we are technilogically and economically capable of such a flight and dealing with the real problems you just ignore. There isn't likely to be men on Mars in the next few centuries. But, please continue in your delusions. They have no bearing on reality.

## Comment Re:Prediction (Score 1)283

I carefully read your response and it boils down to dismissal, a lot of denial, and some delusion.
1) Your assumptions about long term exposure to micro-gravity is mostly a denial of the problem. Not a working solution. We know that people react differently to different factors and to state that everyone, in particular the people landing on Mars, will be just fine after such a prolonged period of being in micro-gravity is simply a dismissal of the problem. If you've seen video of people that have returned from long term micro-gravity exposure experiments, you'd realize they are non-functional. They can't move. They can't stand. They need to be carried. While I'll admit, the effect may be less in a lower gravity environment like Mars, I don't believe you have any idea how long it will take for the each of crew to become functional again after such a long exposure. And it may be deadly to have the crew non-functional too in case there is an emergency.
Also, don't forget it is a year back too. The long term effects of a 2 years of micro-gravity exposure could be deadly if the crew actually made it back to Earth alive too.
2) You basically have conceded this point. You state the crew can go to a storm cellar. What's the difference? It will require radiation shielding. You are basically admitting that the ship will need heavy radiation shielding (which is large, bulky, and expensive to put in place).,
3) I really don't think you know the odds of the ship getting hit over such a long time. I don't think anyone does. They may be pretty good, so the question is - how many dead astronauts are acceptable on a mission like this (provided they don't get hit with a rock bit enough to depressurize the capsule completely and kill them all)?
----------------
In summary, I think any attempt to go to Mars on the cheap is a recipe in disaster. It glosses over serious problems which only means more people will die The only way to minimize losses would be as I stated - rotating sections to expose the crew to a simulated gravity, many sealed sections in case of puncture by micro-meteorites, and a heavy radiation shield. The ship would be massive, expensive to build and fuel. It could easily cost a trillion or more to build such a craft, send it to mars, and retrieve it. And even in that case, there is still a good chance a few of the crew would die. It simply is not practical in today's world or anytime our lifetimes.

## Comment Re:Prediction (Score 1)283

Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.
1) Astronauts that travel for a year without gravity to Mars (which has gravity) will be non-functional in a gravity environment. They will need to be exposed to a gravity environment to be able to perform their mission. Otherwise, they'll be bed ridden when they get to Mars.
2) Robots are not people. The astronauts will be travelling outside of the Earth's magnetic field for the period of a year and they will be exposed to many solar flares during that time. It is not a matter of luck. There is a 100% chance they'll be hit by high doses of solar radiation from these events. This is not a large concern within the Earth's magnetic field. However, this would be deadly to anyone travelling outside of that field and was exposed without significant radiation shielding.
3) Micro-meteorites. Again, this demonstrates you have no clue that you know what you are talking about. The craft we have sent were robotic unpressurized vehicles designed to survive in the harsh environment of space. The problem is that we aren't talking about sending a robot. We are sending people in a pressurized capsule. People aren't designed to take hits from micro-meteorites. If a micro-meteorite goes through the capsule, it de-pressurizes. If it goes through a persons head, heart, or major artery or vein - they'll die. Get the picture? Also, you didn't understand my comment about Earth's gravity well either. The space around Earth is relatively empty of these micro-meteorites because the Earth's mass pulls them in like a huge vacuum cleaner. That is not true once you leave the Earth's gravity well.
So honestly, where did you get your expertise and not know a damn thing about anything?

## Comment Re:Prediction (Score 1)283

First, Mars Direct is a pipe dream. Anyone going on that death trap is going to die. It doesn't even pretend to address the big three problems that is going to kill anyone going to Mars (the lack of gravity, radiation from the Sun, and micro-meteorites). Second, LEO is not Mars. It isn't even the Moon. It is so far beyond any concept of what we have ever thought about doing that it is ridiculous. Third, Elon Musk is rich and wants to spend trillions of American tax payer dollars on space. All that tells me is he is a rich idiot, nothing more.

## Comment Re:Mars500 'nauts didn't starve (Score 2)283

Ok, you can survive 437.7 days in microgravity. You do realize they have to land on Mars and it has gravity. They will be in no shape to land or do anything after that long without having been in a gravity environment along the way. The other problem is lets suppose they use water. Water isn't exactly light and for the same amount of protection, you will probably have to put up 15 times as much water as lead making the vehicle even bigger. Also, your estimate that the vehicle would be 50 tons is ridiculous. Anything with rotating sections, a large radiation shield, and the fuel alone is going many times heavier (probably on the order of 1,000 tons). It is a simple fact this is all purely science fiction and nobody will go to Mars in our lifetimes.

# Slashdot Top Deals

"Go to Heaven for the climate, Hell for the company." -- Mark Twain

Working...