Before the Flood

[Brian]

Actually, it is boring discussing anything with you and Joeblast. You both are absolutely right and I am absolutely wrong in both of your minds. It is sad and unfortunate that the division is so vast.

On the contrary, ralis -- I have repeatedly and vociferously talked about the horrific abuses we are committing against society and nature. We are setting ourselves up for a crash. We are poisoning our water supplies, we are killing our pollinators, we are literally poisoning the food we feed our own children! I specifically disagree, however, with the notion that we need global governmental intervention, regulation and taxation on an unprecedented scale with schemes which don't address the supposed CO₂ problem when the evidence doesn't support it and the models don't work. It's a power-grab and a crime against humanity larger than anything ever attempted, the players repeatedly get caught in their own deceptions, and even the most visible advocates demonstrate through their own actions that they don't really believe it, either (or they'd be making reasonable adjustments, like not having your limo running during an entire conference to keep the AC cold...)

 

The AGW thing is a fraud and it is taking attention and resources away from legitimate environmental concerns to which we should be paying attention and about which we should be very concerned. Don't pretend that my opposition to a globalist initiative originally presented as "policy-shaping" rather than "scientific" and intended to establish a single governmental authority by fiat is somehow a rejection of reason or science. Wanna talk about honeybees? Crops sprayed with Round-Up? Unintended consequences of hydraulic fracturing? Endocrine disrupters in our water supplies? I'm all ears! Tell me I need to shut up about an international effort to introduce the largest tax in world history -- along with the largest governmental authority in world history to enforce it -- particularly one which will impact the world's least fortunate most severely, and I will speak up whether you like it or not.

[Karl]

Hear, hear. The useful idiots appear to be completely brainwashed into supporting global totalitarianism.

[dust]

Thanks 9th. I don't need much convincing of the problems but it looks to be an interesting watch either way. Will give it a go sometime.

 

On a related note, as I assume Leo talks about solar energy at some point (I know Musk makes an appearance):

 

http://peswiki.com/reprint:teslas-solar-ideas

 

People have been talking about directly harnessing the Sun's energy for a long time.

 

Tesla was a very clever man. He was responsible for the first hydroelectric power plant, and he saw the future benefit of solar power -- over 100 years ago. And so did many others.

 

The article ends:

 

"Whether we shall ever have an efficient solar boiler and engine is a problem worth thinking about and a very interesting one at that, as we possess no greater source of natural energy, to be had without taxation or special leases from some money-grabbing coal, oil or other baron, than that of the sun. Some day we may be able to derive all necessary light and power, for our homes at least, by means of a solar-electric plant located on the roof, and who shall say that we must be taxed for utilizing such energy?"

[Karl]

Energy from Stars - it's referred to as fossil fuels, hydro electric, geothermal, nuclear....

 

The problem is that all the stuff in your home, all the solar plant and everything that it takes to tear it out of the ground, transport it, process it, sell it and fit it. All of that and all the people in all the supply and service jobs that need feeding and all the cooking, the farming, the fertilisers, tractors, harvesters, production plant all requires stuff to be torn out of the ground and transported and processed ....

 

See the problem ? Fossil fuels are natures batteries, compact power sources which don't lose charge and are stored as raw product completely safely until we need them. Every quarry, mine, farm, or factory requires enormous amounts of instant energy to power it machinery.

 

That is not to say that such things may be possible, but the problem is that it is the Government that is picking winners and losers for energy innovation. History tells us that they are not just poor at this task, but that they inevitablely create corruption and waste in the attempt. It is always the private inventor and entrepreneur that solves the problems the people demand are solved. The solutions are always unthinkable, unknowable and extraordinary. Shoving scientists and inventors down a route that the state thinks is effective, by politicians and academics that have never created a thing in their lives, is a receipe for disaster, for slowing progress, or worse, pushing us down a dead end from which we can't escape.

 

James Watt did not require the Government to subsidise him to think of steam power, he just sat in his kitchen watching a pot boil. The first practical aircraft was not produced by state subsidy despite the amount of tax payer money spent on trying to do that. Neither rail, nor shipping were ever succesfully subsidised by the state. Only free markets and more importantly free minds working in that free market are capable of the kind of solutions that we will eventually need. If we don't implement that freedom to liberate the entrepreneur we might well end up as a footnote in some future Aliens history books.

[joeblast]

Thanks 9th. I don't need much convincing of the problems but it looks to be an interesting watch either way. Will give it a go sometime.

 

On a related note, as I assume Leo talks about solar energy at some point (I know Musk makes an appearance):

 

http://peswiki.com/reprint:teslas-solar-ideas

 

People have been talking about directly harnessing the Sun's energy for a long time.

 

Tesla was a very clever man. He was responsible for the first hydroelectric power plant, and he saw the future benefit of solar power -- over 100 years ago. And so did many others.

 

The article ends:

 

"Whether we shall ever have an efficient solar boiler and engine is a problem worth thinking about and a very interesting one at that, as we possess no greater source of natural energy, to be had without taxation or special leases from some money-grabbing coal, oil or other baron, than that of the sun. Some day we may be able to derive all necessary light and power, for our homes at least, by means of a solar-electric plant located on the roof, and who shall say that we must be taxed for utilizing such energy?"

Non free energy, courtesy of co-conspirators JP Morgan and Thomas Edison

[Andrei]

This article sums up everything:

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/if-carbon-dioxide-makes-u/

 

 

Water vapor is excluded from the above calculation because it is an intimate and highly variable part of the climate system itself in the form of clouds, rain, snow and other weather. The long-lived greenhouse gases, however, can be considered an external forcing clearly influenced by human action. Most climatologists expect that on average the atmospheres water vapor content will increase in response to surface warming caused by the long-lived greenhouse gases, further accelerating the overall warming trend.

 

I am not climatologist but I am an  PhD aerospace engineer so I understand some things that happen in the atmosphere.

Here are my calculations with data from Wikipedia and NASA.

cp and cv are the caloric capacities of gases when pressure is maintained constant but the volume allowed to change, or the volume is maintained constant but the pressure is allowed to change. A simplified atmospheric model will assume that the pressure remain constant but the volume is allowed to change, so the cv number is closer to reality than cp. I made the calculations for both:

 

Total mass of atmosphere:  5.1 x 10^18 kg (data from NASA)
Surface density: 1.217 kg/m3 (data from NASA)

Density is mass/volume so I had to make some corrections to take into account the mass of CO2 which is heavier than air and water vapor. Water vapor is lighter than air.
Water volume percentage is highly variable, typically makes up about 1% of volume (I took 1.5% the average value at 15 deg C the standard temperature)
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html
On wikipedia the atmospheric water article is confusing and they purposefully don't provide clear data.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor

Carbon dioxide

Carbon dioxide content

cp = 0.844 KJ/Kg K
cv = 0.655 KJ/Kg K

0.04% = 400 ppmv today (7000 ppmv in Cambrian)

density = 1.98 Kg/m3

Carbon dioxide mass = Atmospheric mass / Atm density * CO2 density * CO2 percentage  = 5.1*1.98/1.217*4/10000*10^18 = 3.319*10^15 kg
Carbon dioxide mass in Cambrian = 5.1*1.98/1.217*7000/1000000*10^18 = 58.082*10^15

Carbon dioxide from today heat trapped
0.844 * 3.319 * 10^15 = 2.8 *10^15 KJ/K
0.655 * 3.319 * 10^15 = 2.17 *10^15 KJ/K

Carbon dioxide from Cambrian heat trapped
0.844 * 58.082 * 10^15 = 49.02 *10^15 KJ/K
0.655 * 58.082 * 10^15 = 38.04 *10^15 KJ/K

Water vapour

cp = 1.93 KJ/Kg K
cv = 1.46 KJ/Kg K

0.01 % at -42 degC
1.5  % at 15 degC (standard atmospheric temperature)
4.24 % at 30 degC

density 0.804 kg/m3

Water vapour mass = Atmospheric mass / Atm density * Water vapour density * Water vapour percentage = 5.1*0.804/1.217*1.5/100*10^18 = 50.54*10^15 kg

Water vapour from today heat trapped
1.93 * 50.54 * 10^15 = 97.54 *10^15 KJ/K
1.46 * 50.54 * 10^15 = 73.79 *10^15 KJ/K

Today

If the pressure is constant, the ratio between water to CO2 heat is 97.54 / 2.8 = 34.84 times more water than carbon (2.87% Carbon vs water)
If the volume   is constant, the ratio between water to CO2 heat is 73.79 / 2.17 = 27.33 times (3.65% Carbon vs water)

In Cambrian period

If the pressure is constant, the ratio between water to CO2 heat is 97.54 / 49.02 = 2 times (50% Carbon vs water)
If the volume   is constant, the ratio between water to CO2 heat is 73.79 / 38.04 = 1.94 times (51.5% Carbon vs water)

 

So my conclusion is this: I am really looking forward for the atmosphere to be like in Cambrian, there were not humans at that time, and that was a period when life on Earth literally exploded, the most species on Earth ever was in Cambrian and the atmosphere was hot and still life not only was surviving but thriving. If we are eliminating ourselves from the gene pool that's OK, as George Carlin was saying, the planet is fine, we are screwed.

[Brian]

This article sums up everything:

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/if-carbon-dioxide-makes-u/

 

 

I am not climatologist but I am an  PhD aerospace engineer so I understand some things that happen in the atmosphere.

Here are my calculations with data from Wikipedia and NASA.

cp and cv are the caloric capacities of gases when pressure is maintained constant but the volume allowed to change, or the volume is maintained constant but the pressure is allowed to change. A simplified atmospheric model will assume that the pressure remain constant but the volume is allowed to change, so the cv number is closer to reality than cp. I made the calculations for both:

 

Total mass of atmosphere:  5.1 x 10^18 kg (data from NASA)

Surface density: 1.217 kg/m3 (data from NASA)

Density is mass/volume so I had to make some corrections to take into account the mass of CO2 which is heavier than air and water vapor. Water vapor is lighter than air.

Water volume percentage is highly variable, typically makes up about 1% of volume (I took 1.5% the average value at 15 deg C the standard temperature)

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html

On wikipedia the atmospheric water article is confusing and they purposefully don't provide clear data.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_vapor

Carbon dioxide

Carbon dioxide content

cp = 0.844 KJ/Kg K

cv = 0.655 KJ/Kg K

0.04% = 400 ppmv today (7000 ppmv in Cambrian)

density = 1.98 Kg/m3

Carbon dioxide mass = Atmospheric mass / Atm density * CO2 density * CO2 percentage  = 5.1*1.98/1.217*4/10000*10^18 = 3.319*10^15 kg

Carbon dioxide mass in Cambrian = 5.1*1.98/1.217*7000/1000000*10^18 = 58.082*10^15

Carbon dioxide from today heat trapped

0.844 * 3.319 * 10^15 = 2.8 *10^15 KJ/K

0.655 * 3.319 * 10^15 = 2.17 *10^15 KJ/K

Carbon dioxide from Cambrian heat trapped

0.844 * 58.082 * 10^15 = 49.02 *10^15 KJ/K

0.655 * 58.082 * 10^15 = 38.04 *10^15 KJ/K

Water vapour

cp = 1.93 KJ/Kg K

cv = 1.46 KJ/Kg K

0.01 % at -42 degC

1.5  % at 15 degC (standard atmospheric temperature)

4.24 % at 30 degC

density 0.804 kg/m3

Water vapour mass = Atmospheric mass / Atm density * Water vapour density * Water vapour percentage = 5.1*0.804/1.217*1.5/100*10^18 = 50.54*10^15 kg

Water vapour from today heat trapped

1.93 * 50.54 * 10^15 = 97.54 *10^15 KJ/K

1.46 * 50.54 * 10^15 = 73.79 *10^15 KJ/K

Today

If the pressure is constant, the ratio between water to CO2 heat is 97.54 / 2.8 = 34.84 times more water than carbon (2.87% Carbon vs water)

If the volume   is constant, the ratio between water to CO2 heat is 73.79 / 2.17 = 27.33 times (3.65% Carbon vs water)

In Cambrian period

If the pressure is constant, the ratio between water to CO2 heat is 97.54 / 49.02 = 2 times (50% Carbon vs water)

If the volume   is constant, the ratio between water to CO2 heat is 73.79 / 38.04 = 1.94 times (51.5% Carbon vs water)

 

So my conclusion is this: I am really looking forward for the atmosphere to be like in Cambrian, there were not humans at that time, and that was a period when life on Earth literally exploded, the most species on Earth ever was in Cambrian and the atmosphere was hot and still life not only was surviving but thriving. If we are eliminating ourselves from the gene pool that's OK, as George Carlin was saying, the planet is fine, we are screwed.

Thank you for taking the time to post this.

 

BTW, even just looking at human history, we have thrived during relative warm periods and struggled during relative cold periods.

[Andrei]

https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy/news/paris-withdraws-plans-for-carbon-tax-on-coal/