September 11, 2023
Climate Change Discussion
Carlos Velazquez
This post will be misunderstood, and I will get "flamed" as they used to say in the early days of the internet. Comments are always welcome as long as they are civil and do not violate my "family friendly" page requirement. See pinned post. Also, if commenting please read this post carefully. Thank you.
First a disclaimer: I think "anthropogenic global warming" or "climate change" has been blown up way out of proportion and the elite statists are, as always, looking for new crises with which to create alarm, confusion, and fear to get people inured to their increasing demands for control of society through "environmental" laws and regulations by unelected bureaucrats.
That said, two things are true which we earthlings will eventually have to deal with.
(1) Using fossil fuels long buried underground means we are transferring hydrocarbons and their related gaseous effluents, such as CO2, from below the surface of the Earth, where they have been for thousands of years, to the atmosphere. That cannot be denied. The question is where do they go? They go into the atmosphere and are absorbed in the oceans. Green plants need and use CO2. More CO2 should mean increasing greenery and forests. My concern is, as a trained engineer, have we reached STEADY STATE regarding the balance of the emission of CO2 and the use by plants and absorption rate of the oceans? And, if not, do we know how much more CO2 the oceans can absorb without deleterious effects?
(2) Forgetting about CO2 for the moment, just the fact that humans need and use energy does not negate the reality that energy used for work always generates waste heat. The 3rd Law of Thermodynamics cannot be repealed or avoided. What does this mean? Every time we drive our cars we are adding heat to the atmosphere. For example, braking creates heat so the inertial energy of the moving car is converted into heating the brakes which are cooled by the atmosphere. And that's just cars. Every industrial process and almost all human activity produces waste heat. What's the issue? The issue is that the HEAT BALANCE of Earth's atmosphere is like a delicate dance between the energy the Earth receives from the sun and the energy it radiates back into space. The Sun sends energy to Earth in the form of sunlight. This energy contains heat, which warms the Earth. When sunlight reaches Earth, some of it is absorbed by the surface, like land, water, and vegetation. This absorption warms the Earth's surface. The Earth, like any warm object, emits heat in the form of infrared radiation (heat radiation). This outgoing heat energy tries to escape into space. Again, from my engineering training, in order for the Earth's temperature not to continually increase, there has to be a STEADY STATE or heat balance situation.
Bottom line: I am NOT an alarmist or claiming this is an immediate crisis. However, the Laws of Thermodynamics, and Physics in general, are inexorable and unforgiving. It may be centuries before any serious effects result from adding more heat (and CO2) to the atmosphere than what the Earth radiates (or absorbs) and by that time you and in will no longer be here on Earth. As Christians commanded to be good stewards of God's creation, I think those issues should not be ignored, or worse, let the statist, tyrannical, elites hijack them for their malevolent purposes.
I do not disagree Carlos.
Indeed, fossil carbon is something that does not exist in our atmosphere at present, so it does change the balance of gases to a nominal degree (granted that degree has been 0.01%). But it is a long-term issue.
But there is a more pressing one.
Water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. And what are we doing? We have been pumping water out of deep aquifers, fossil water that has been there for millions of years. I remember years ago Roger Pielke Sr. discussed that on his blog. It concerned him a heckuva lot more than co2.
He had a point.
Your point about heat pollution is also salient. Heat is never destroyed; once created via a change in physical state - be it chemical or radiological or whatnot - heat is the most randomized form of any energy we produce. So we ARE warming the planet. Granted, our very bodies do too. But there is no way to take heat out of the system except to let some substance absorb it, and that is only temporary.
Ideally we would find a way to put this heat to work for us. Take it out of the system and apply it, recycle it as it were.
And of course the Urban Heat Island Effect is an example of heat pollution. I know; it is often associated with blacktops and other heat-holding things in the cities, but it equally applies to heat pollution.
In Larry Niven's Known Space stories one of the alien races actually moved their planet out further from their sun because of it - then eventually just ditched their sun altogether. I read that as a kid and was fascinated by the concept.
What's the answer? In my humble opinion it is space colonization. Move a lot of the industries off-world. Who cares if you overheat the Moon, or a space-based factory? I see a day when the Moon becomes the industrial heartland of our civilization. In fact I can see a day where the Moon takes over as the center of things and the Earth is just a kind of quaint historical village, like Williamsburg or something.
Otherwise we will have to find a way to move heat from the Earth to space. A space elevator with superconductors might do - if we can find a way to make such a thing practical. (I rather doubt it would be useful for an actual elevator to move stuff, but maybe a simpler task? Maybe solar power can be brought down and waste heat sent up and radiated away?
Carlos, I have always seen both sides of this story. I am convinced the Gang Green wants to promote it for their own nefarious purposes, as a tool to force us all into a world socialist state, but there is cause for concern. I read a book by Gene Cernan, the astronaut, written in the early '70's where he warned about a lot of this. He wasn't wrong about much of it.
The main thing is we don't understand so very much. The Earth is self-repairing in many ways.
I would add co2 does indeed go in the oceans and forms into limestone there, thus is actually removed from the system. Richard Cronin could add to this discussion here. So there are correcting mechanisms in place, negative feedback loops that restore homeostasis to the system.
And there is the whole crux of the REAL debate; what is the climate sensitivity? Are negative feedbacks more important than positive? The Gang Green argues for all positive feedbacks, for low climate sensitivity. Skeptics argue for a higher sensitivity.
I always point out Mars at this point. Mars has an atmosphere that is 95% carbon dioxide, yet Mars is colder than we would expect. Why? it's atmosphere is so thin. But why? There is considerable amounts of carbon dioxide and methane and water vapor frozen into the permafrost on Mars, and of course Mars has thick polar ice of water and frozen carbon dioxide - dry ice. Much of it sublimates in summer then is restored in winter.
Now occasionally Mars starts warming, coming out of it's ice age. The atmosphere thickens from 7 to as high as 16 millibars. But then the thicker atmosphere is energized, and the subsequent winds kick up a huge dust storm that cools the planet back down. Mars cools, the atmosphere freezes back out, and Mars goes back to it's hibernation.
Venus is totally different. But Venus has an atmosphere that is 100 times as dense as the Earth's; any gas at that level would have a powerful greenhouse effect. And Venus is subject to considerable vulcanism, as a result of it's very thin crust and probably slow retrograde rotation as well. Oh, and no Moon; Venus has nothing to strip away it's excess air.
The Gang Green chooses to use Venus as their model, but I don't think we understand enough about the planet. Mars certainly contradicts the idea of massive greenhouse warming.
At any rate, the Earth's paltry amount of c02 just doesn't have enough of an impact to really warm the planet. It's like trying to keep out a rainstorm using a fishnet. The c02 captures heat and reradiates it, but as much of it goes back to space as will go downward. And there is a logarithmic relationship; at 2* the wavelength is saturated and the whole thing craps out. The serious scientists argue this will lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere and then to more methane. Maybe. It presumes a very low climate sensitivity.
I think we have plenty of time before we could noticeably change the Earth's climate. The idea this is some sort of emergency is rubbish, in my humble non-scientist view.
We have far more worrisome things to panic about. Nuclear war for one, something our current leadership seems hell-bent on getting us into. And there is CRISPR technology, which could create a doomsday virus. And of course Carlos your pet subject AI...
This post will be misunderstood, and I will get "flamed" as they used to say in the early days of the internet. Comments are always welcome as long as they are civil and do not violate my "family friendly" page requirement. See pinned post. Also, if commenting please read this post carefully. Thank you.
First a disclaimer: I think "anthropogenic global warming" or "climate change" has been blown up way out of proportion and the elite statists are, as always, looking for new crises with which to create alarm, confusion, and fear to get people inured to their increasing demands for control of society through "environmental" laws and regulations by unelected bureaucrats.
That said, two things are true which we earthlings will eventually have to deal with.
(1) Using fossil fuels long buried underground means we are transferring hydrocarbons and their related gaseous effluents, such as CO2, from below the surface of the Earth, where they have been for thousands of years, to the atmosphere. That cannot be denied. The question is where do they go? They go into the atmosphere and are absorbed in the oceans. Green plants need and use CO2. More CO2 should mean increasing greenery and forests. My concern is, as a trained engineer, have we reached STEADY STATE regarding the balance of the emission of CO2 and the use by plants and absorption rate of the oceans? And, if not, do we know how much more CO2 the oceans can absorb without deleterious effects?
(2) Forgetting about CO2 for the moment, just the fact that humans need and use energy does not negate the reality that energy used for work always generates waste heat. The 3rd Law of Thermodynamics cannot be repealed or avoided. What does this mean? Every time we drive our cars we are adding heat to the atmosphere. For example, braking creates heat so the inertial energy of the moving car is converted into heating the brakes which are cooled by the atmosphere. And that's just cars. Every industrial process and almost all human activity produces waste heat. What's the issue? The issue is that the HEAT BALANCE of Earth's atmosphere is like a delicate dance between the energy the Earth receives from the sun and the energy it radiates back into space. The Sun sends energy to Earth in the form of sunlight. This energy contains heat, which warms the Earth. When sunlight reaches Earth, some of it is absorbed by the surface, like land, water, and vegetation. This absorption warms the Earth's surface. The Earth, like any warm object, emits heat in the form of infrared radiation (heat radiation). This outgoing heat energy tries to escape into space. Again, from my engineering training, in order for the Earth's temperature not to continually increase, there has to be a STEADY STATE or heat balance situation.
Bottom line: I am NOT an alarmist or claiming this is an immediate crisis. However, the Laws of Thermodynamics, and Physics in general, are inexorable and unforgiving. It may be centuries before any serious effects result from adding more heat (and CO2) to the atmosphere than what the Earth radiates (or absorbs) and by that time you and in will no longer be here on Earth. As Christians commanded to be good stewards of God's creation, I think those issues should not be ignored, or worse, let the statist, tyrannical, elites hijack them for their malevolent purposes.
I do not disagree Carlos.
Indeed, fossil carbon is something that does not exist in our atmosphere at present, so it does change the balance of gases to a nominal degree (granted that degree has been 0.01%). But it is a long-term issue.
But there is a more pressing one.
Water vapor is by far the most important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. And what are we doing? We have been pumping water out of deep aquifers, fossil water that has been there for millions of years. I remember years ago Roger Pielke Sr. discussed that on his blog. It concerned him a heckuva lot more than co2.
He had a point.
Your point about heat pollution is also salient. Heat is never destroyed; once created via a change in physical state - be it chemical or radiological or whatnot - heat is the most randomized form of any energy we produce. So we ARE warming the planet. Granted, our very bodies do too. But there is no way to take heat out of the system except to let some substance absorb it, and that is only temporary.
Ideally we would find a way to put this heat to work for us. Take it out of the system and apply it, recycle it as it were.
And of course the Urban Heat Island Effect is an example of heat pollution. I know; it is often associated with blacktops and other heat-holding things in the cities, but it equally applies to heat pollution.
In Larry Niven's Known Space stories one of the alien races actually moved their planet out further from their sun because of it - then eventually just ditched their sun altogether. I read that as a kid and was fascinated by the concept.
What's the answer? In my humble opinion it is space colonization. Move a lot of the industries off-world. Who cares if you overheat the Moon, or a space-based factory? I see a day when the Moon becomes the industrial heartland of our civilization. In fact I can see a day where the Moon takes over as the center of things and the Earth is just a kind of quaint historical village, like Williamsburg or something.
Otherwise we will have to find a way to move heat from the Earth to space. A space elevator with superconductors might do - if we can find a way to make such a thing practical. (I rather doubt it would be useful for an actual elevator to move stuff, but maybe a simpler task? Maybe solar power can be brought down and waste heat sent up and radiated away?
Carlos, I have always seen both sides of this story. I am convinced the Gang Green wants to promote it for their own nefarious purposes, as a tool to force us all into a world socialist state, but there is cause for concern. I read a book by Gene Cernan, the astronaut, written in the early '70's where he warned about a lot of this. He wasn't wrong about much of it.
The main thing is we don't understand so very much. The Earth is self-repairing in many ways.
I would add co2 does indeed go in the oceans and forms into limestone there, thus is actually removed from the system. Richard Cronin could add to this discussion here. So there are correcting mechanisms in place, negative feedback loops that restore homeostasis to the system.
And there is the whole crux of the REAL debate; what is the climate sensitivity? Are negative feedbacks more important than positive? The Gang Green argues for all positive feedbacks, for low climate sensitivity. Skeptics argue for a higher sensitivity.
I always point out Mars at this point. Mars has an atmosphere that is 95% carbon dioxide, yet Mars is colder than we would expect. Why? it's atmosphere is so thin. But why? There is considerable amounts of carbon dioxide and methane and water vapor frozen into the permafrost on Mars, and of course Mars has thick polar ice of water and frozen carbon dioxide - dry ice. Much of it sublimates in summer then is restored in winter.
Now occasionally Mars starts warming, coming out of it's ice age. The atmosphere thickens from 7 to as high as 16 millibars. But then the thicker atmosphere is energized, and the subsequent winds kick up a huge dust storm that cools the planet back down. Mars cools, the atmosphere freezes back out, and Mars goes back to it's hibernation.
Venus is totally different. But Venus has an atmosphere that is 100 times as dense as the Earth's; any gas at that level would have a powerful greenhouse effect. And Venus is subject to considerable vulcanism, as a result of it's very thin crust and probably slow retrograde rotation as well. Oh, and no Moon; Venus has nothing to strip away it's excess air.
The Gang Green chooses to use Venus as their model, but I don't think we understand enough about the planet. Mars certainly contradicts the idea of massive greenhouse warming.
At any rate, the Earth's paltry amount of c02 just doesn't have enough of an impact to really warm the planet. It's like trying to keep out a rainstorm using a fishnet. The c02 captures heat and reradiates it, but as much of it goes back to space as will go downward. And there is a logarithmic relationship; at 2* the wavelength is saturated and the whole thing craps out. The serious scientists argue this will lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere and then to more methane. Maybe. It presumes a very low climate sensitivity.
I think we have plenty of time before we could noticeably change the Earth's climate. The idea this is some sort of emergency is rubbish, in my humble non-scientist view.
We have far more worrisome things to panic about. Nuclear war for one, something our current leadership seems hell-bent on getting us into. And there is CRISPR technology, which could create a doomsday virus. And of course Carlos your pet subject AI...
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
04:51 PM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1591 words, total size 9 kb.
1
Your thoughtful analysis sheds light on the complexity of the climate change debate. It's essential to engage in discussions like these, where differing viewpoints can be explored without hostility. I'm curious about your perspective on potential technological solutions to address some of the concerns you've raised, such as finding ways to efficiently remove excess heat from our planet or innovative approaches to manage emissions. What role do you believe technology should play in addressing these long-term challenges? | click here
Posted by: Lucie at September 12, 2023 03:10 AM (P9OTT)
2
Thank you Lucie!
You ask:
" I'm curious about your perspective on potential technological solutions to address some of the concerns you've raised"
My first principle is that of the old woman who swallowed the fly in the children's song. She kept swallowing bigger abd bigger things untill eventually it killed her. In other words I think first and foremost we must exercise the cautionary principle; the cure can be worse than the disease.
I am dead set against many of thse geoengineering schemes. I think the Earth is resiliant and will largely fix itself in time Perhaps not completely. But dumping white powder over the Arctic, or aerosols into the atmosphere, could have repercussions we just can't forsee - and which could lead to ruin. We could perhaps trigger an ice age or some such.
We really don't know enough about climate to take these bold steps.
That said, there ARE ways of helping out. More trees, for instance, help, even though they will return to the Earth fairly quickly and lead thus re-outgass.
Bettter to move it into the sea, where it will fall to the bottome of the ocean and form into limestone.
As I said, actually moving the heat off the Earth would be very difficult. Some sort of space elevator that would act as a radiator fin or twelve would be nice, but we would need a remarkable material to stretch a line from the equator to geostationary orbit (a spot above the equator that orbits in the exact same amount of time as the planet, hence hovers over the same spot, and does not waiver vertically.) You actually would have to make a cable twice that long; it would have to go way beyond geostationary and be tethered by a big rock - a small asteroid. This would require an amazingly strong material.
I think other measures, like carbon capture technology, could work BUT there has to be a way to profit from it. People aren't going to use an expensive technology if there is nothing in it for them. It's human nature. But if we can find a way to remove carbon or other undesirable materials from the atmosphere (actually carbon dioxide isn't undesirable at all and in fact the Earth had much more of it in times past) there has to be a way to make some of the cost back. Maybe we can turn it into diamonds or something.
At anyr rate, thanks for a great comment Lucie; I'll look at writing a whole post of remediation technology one day in the near future!
You ask:
" I'm curious about your perspective on potential technological solutions to address some of the concerns you've raised"
My first principle is that of the old woman who swallowed the fly in the children's song. She kept swallowing bigger abd bigger things untill eventually it killed her. In other words I think first and foremost we must exercise the cautionary principle; the cure can be worse than the disease.
I am dead set against many of thse geoengineering schemes. I think the Earth is resiliant and will largely fix itself in time Perhaps not completely. But dumping white powder over the Arctic, or aerosols into the atmosphere, could have repercussions we just can't forsee - and which could lead to ruin. We could perhaps trigger an ice age or some such.
We really don't know enough about climate to take these bold steps.
That said, there ARE ways of helping out. More trees, for instance, help, even though they will return to the Earth fairly quickly and lead thus re-outgass.
Bettter to move it into the sea, where it will fall to the bottome of the ocean and form into limestone.
As I said, actually moving the heat off the Earth would be very difficult. Some sort of space elevator that would act as a radiator fin or twelve would be nice, but we would need a remarkable material to stretch a line from the equator to geostationary orbit (a spot above the equator that orbits in the exact same amount of time as the planet, hence hovers over the same spot, and does not waiver vertically.) You actually would have to make a cable twice that long; it would have to go way beyond geostationary and be tethered by a big rock - a small asteroid. This would require an amazingly strong material.
I think other measures, like carbon capture technology, could work BUT there has to be a way to profit from it. People aren't going to use an expensive technology if there is nothing in it for them. It's human nature. But if we can find a way to remove carbon or other undesirable materials from the atmosphere (actually carbon dioxide isn't undesirable at all and in fact the Earth had much more of it in times past) there has to be a way to make some of the cost back. Maybe we can turn it into diamonds or something.
At anyr rate, thanks for a great comment Lucie; I'll look at writing a whole post of remediation technology one day in the near future!
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at September 12, 2023 07:22 AM (m3h5E)
33kb generated in CPU 0.0241, elapsed 0.2332 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.224 seconds, 188 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
37 queries taking 0.224 seconds, 188 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
