Nova: Decoding the Weather Machine

[homersapien 11,367]

On 10/4/2019 at 2:06 PM, SaturdayGT said:

Maybe if you choose to see it!

I don't see it.   Can you please tell us what your point was?

[johnnyAU 3,630]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

You don't believe in free market efficiency? 

There isn't anything stopping the free market or its creative power right now without an idiotic carbon tax.  

[SaturdayGT 719]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

I don't see it.   Can you please tell us what your point was?

If you noticed, for last hundred years of the 250 year industrial age where humans have left their biggest "carbon foot print", its been a sort of roller coaster ride of doom. We have been threatened with either a new ice age or or over warming. Im willing to bet that sometime in the next 20 to 30 years, there will be a cooling trend based on the headline s in the past hundred years or so, and politicians will find a way to profit and promote themselves from "the next ice age! And how politicians and scientists are our only hope!" . Its a trend with politics and their science thats been way more predictable than weather!.... Maybe im wrong, but I honestly feel my guess is just as good as anyone elses! 

[homersapien 11,367]

18 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

There isn't anything stopping the free market or its creative power right now without an idiotic carbon tax.  

There is no incentive for companies to reduce their carbon emissions, which is the purpose of a carbon tax - to provide that incentive.  How those emissions are removed are left up to the market - thus the efficiency.

 

"Carbon tax is a form of pollution tax. It levies a fee on the production, distribution or use of fossil fuels based on how much carbon their combustion emits. The government sets a price per ton on carbon, then translates it into a tax on electricity, natural gas or oil. Because the tax makes using dirty fuels more­ expensive, it encourages utilities, businesses and individuals to reduce consumption and increase energy efficiency. Carbon tax also makes alternative energy more cost-competitive with cheaper, polluting fuels like coal, natural gas and oil.

Carbon tax is based on the economic principle of negative externalities. Externalities are costs or benefits generated by the production of goods and services. Negative externalities are costs that are not paid for. When utilities, businesses or homeowners consume fossil fuels, they create pollution that has a societal cost; everyone suffers from the effects of pollution. Proponents of a carbon tax believe that the price of fossil fuels should account for these societal costs. More simply put -- if you're polluting to everyone else's detriment, you should have to pay for it."

https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/carbon-tax.htm

 

[homersapien 11,367]

14 hours ago, SaturdayGT said:

If you noticed, for last hundred years of the 250 year industrial age where humans have left their biggest "carbon foot print", its been a sort of roller coaster ride of doom. We have been threatened with either a new ice age or or over warming. Im willing to bet that sometime in the next 20 to 30 years, there will be a cooling trend based on the headline s in the past hundred years or so, and politicians will find a way to profit and promote themselves from "the next ice age! And how politicians and scientists are our only hope!" . Its a trend with politics and their science thats been way more predictable than weather!.... Maybe im wrong, but I honestly feel my guess is just as good as anyone elses! 

That "roller coaster of doom" was created by the media, not science. 

(The popular myth of the prediction of a new ice age is a prime example.  The scientific community has never supported such a thesis.)

There is no cooling trend in our near future. 

I'm willing to bet that within 20-30 years, you will come to accept the reality of AGW instead of simply wishing or hoping it isn't true.  

And politics has nothing to do with the science, it simply reflects the understanding of the populace of the problem, which is finally increasing. 

Unfortunately, politics - just as the general understanding or appreciation of the crisis - is largely reactionary.  (In fact, the only reason the politics are changing is that we are now experiencing that warming.)

It will likely get worse. 

[johnnyAU 3,630]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

There is no incentive for companies to reduce their carbon emissions, which is the purpose of a carbon tax - to provide that incentive.  How those emissions are removed are left up to the market - thus the efficiency.

 

"Carbon tax is a form of pollution tax. It levies a fee on the production, distribution or use of fossil fuels based on how much carbon their combustion emits. The government sets a price per ton on carbon, then translates it into a tax on electricity, natural gas or oil. Because the tax makes using dirty fuels more­ expensive, it encourages utilities, businesses and individuals to reduce consumption and increase energy efficiency. Carbon tax also makes alternative energy more cost-competitive with cheaper, polluting fuels like coal, natural gas and oil.

Carbon tax is based on the economic principle of negative externalities. Externalities are costs or benefits generated by the production of goods and services. Negative externalities are costs that are not paid for. When utilities, businesses or homeowners consume fossil fuels, they create pollution that has a societal cost; everyone suffers from the effects of pollution. Proponents of a carbon tax believe that the price of fossil fuels should account for these societal costs. More simply put -- if you're polluting to everyone else's detriment, you should have to pay for it."

https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/carbon-tax.htm

 

CO2 is not a pollutant and neither are natural gas or nuclear. Trying to get it erroneously pegged as a pollutant was a blatant attempt at getting the ridiculous carbon tax approved. Intermittent sources like wind and solar will never be cost competitive without heavy subsidies and they'll likely never be able to sustain larger grids without backup. Throwing tons of money taken from the pockets of the consumers isn't going to change that.

Again, you are blinded by your political bias. 

[Tiger Sue 325]

Homer don't like this one.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/04/north-carolina-energy-company-finds-solar-power-actually-increases-pollution/

[AUDub 11,147]

8 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

CO2 is not a pollutant and neither are natural gas or nuclear. Trying to get it erroneously pegged as a pollutant was a blatant attempt at getting the ridiculous carbon tax approved. Intermittent sources like wind and solar will never be cost competitive without heavy subsidies and they'll likely never be able to sustain larger grids without backup. Throwing tons of money taken from the pockets of the consumers isn't going to change that.

Again, you are blinded by your political bias. 

That's dithering with the definition of "pollutant."

Even substances that are benign, even necessary for life, become poisonous in high enough concentrations. 

[johnnyAU 3,630]

8 hours ago, AUDub said:

That's dithering with the definition of "pollutant."

Even substances that are benign, even necessary for life, become poisonous in high enough concentrations. 

And what concentration is CO2 poisonous? It's nowhere near 400 ppm

[AUDub 11,147]

6 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

And what concentration is CO2 poisonous? It's nowhere near 400 ppm

Nope. It will cause acute problems at about 2000ppm. 

But that's not the point I was making. Pollutants are, by definition,  anything introduced into the environment that causes an adverse effect. 

[homersapien 11,367]

7 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

And what concentration is CO2 poisonous? It's nowhere near 400 ppm

In this case, the more relevant question is what is the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere that will create the greenhouse effect?

[johnnyAU 3,630]

54 minutes ago, homersapien said:

In this case, the more relevant question is what is the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere that will create the greenhouse effect?

The greenhouse effect was there with zero man made CO2 emissions, and vast majority of the effect is from water vapor, not CO2 to begin with. However, the real relevant question is how much of an effect does the last 1.2 molecules/10,000 of CO2 in the atmosphere actually have on the global climate? The current models all run considerably hot because we neither fully understand the real climate sensitivity to the doubling of CO2, nor do we fully understand the complexity of natural variations. It's not a simple problem at all, but it is painted as such in the media. 

[AUDub 11,147]

30 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

The greenhouse effect was there with zero man made CO2 emissions, and vast majority of the effect is from water vapor, not CO2 to begin with.

Water's contribution is capped by temperature. Yeah, it's far more potent as a GHG, but it's a feedback, not a forcing like CO2. Added CO2 remains in the atmosphere a long time, and contributes to a stronger greenhouse effect and higher temperatures. This tends to raise specific humidity, which increases water in the atmosphere as well, and that makes the greenhouse effect stronger again. There are many complexities here. 

Quote

However, the real relevant question is how much of an effect does the last 1.2 molecules/10,000 of CO2 in the atmosphere actually have on the global climate?

A lot. You keep arguing as if the 400ppm number is insignificant. Far from it. 

Quote

The current models all run considerably hot because we neither fully understand the real climate sensitivity to the doubling of CO2, nor do we fully understand the complexity of natural variations. It's not a simple problem at all, but it is painted as such in the media. 

CO2's forcing effect is one of the best understood aspects of the whole problem. 

You're arguing out of your depth again. 

[johnnyAU 3,630]

58 minutes ago, AUDub said:

CO2's forcing effect is one of the best understood aspects of the whole problem. 

You're arguing out of your depth again. 

It's one of the most misunderstood aspects of the whole problem, especially the magnitude of the effect, but it's certainly claimed to be fully understood...and apparently believed by many.  

1 hour ago, AUDub said:

A lot. You keep arguing as if the 400ppm number is insignificant. Far from it.

It isn't insignificant. It's helping green some parts of the planet a bit, but it isn't driving the global climate. 

[AUDub 11,147]

3 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

It's one of the most misunderstood aspects of the whole problem, especially the magnitude of the effect, but it's certainly claimed to be fully understood...and apparently believed by many.  

Our understanding of CO2's properties as a GHG date back to the Civil War, your paltry ex cathedra challenges aside. 

3 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

It isn't insignificant. It's helping green some parts of the planet a bit, but it isn't driving the global climate. 

It very much is. Hell, even the oceans are acidifying as a result of excess CO2 at this point. 

Really out of your depth. 

[johnnyAU 3,630]

3 minutes ago, AUDub said:

It very much is. Hell, even the oceans are acidifying as a result of excess CO2 at this point. 

The oceans will never be acidic. The evidence that the ocean ph has moved from  8.2 to 8.1 in the modern era is iffy at best and is nowhere near "acidifying".  But that "becoming acidic" is a scary set of terms isn't it?

 

15 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Our understanding of CO2's properties

Our misunderstanding of the magnitude of the effect as a whole versus natural variability, as noted by the failure of simulations versus reality, is a large part of the skepticism...not to mention the ridiculous hyperbole and dramatic theatrics the media bombards us with daily.  

When you want global economic reform, you need global money and power. To get that money and power, you need global buy-in. To get that global buy-in, you need not only a global problem, but you need to create global panic and fear. To create that global fear, you need a scapegoat...especially one that is born from that nasty capitalism....and daily alarmism/embellishments...Add to it the virtue signaling of "saving the planet" and sprinkle in a little "bad versus evil"  righteousness fire and brimstone doomsday scenarious and here we are.

At some point, that alarmism and those predictions have to ring true. They haven't, and won't. Kicking the can further and further down the road isn't going to cut it. Predictions now of 50 or 100 years in the future will outlive most of us, so it's "your children and grandchildren" that are at "stake".  

I believe we'll know by 2030, not 2050 or longer,  just how wrong we were about the impacts of CO2 and how obviously misguided we allowed science to become in the name of money and politics. Hopefully we won't have been dumb enough to dump trillions of $$$ into wind and solar that will effectively do nothing to the climate, or even more boneheaded and try and continue pursuing stratospheric aerosol injections or worse. Panic does tend to fuel stupidity. Just look at the extinction rebellions for examples. 

Once again you've resorted to name calling and claiming victory.  It's what most of you do when you run out of your own depth on any subject. 

[AUDub 11,147]

6 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

The oceans will never be acidic. The evidence that the ocean ph has moved from  8.2 to 8.1 in the modern era is iffy at best and is nowhere near "acidifying".  But that "becoming acidic" is a scary set of terms isn't it?

Acidifying is a relative term. The oceans are basic, yes, but acidifying implies a drop in PH, not that they're going to become full on "drop below 7" acidic. 

s***, man. Water chemistry is literally my job right now.

So far out of your depth it's laughable.

Quote

Our misunderstanding of the magnitude of the effect as a whole versus natural variability, as noted by the failure of simulations versus reality, is a large part of the skepticism...not to mention the ridiculous hyperbole and dramatic theatrics the media bombards us with daily.

When you want global economic reform, you need global money and power. To get that money and power, you need global buy-in. To get that global buy-in, you need not only a global problem, but you need to create global panic and fear. To create that global fear, you need a scapegoat...especially one that is born from that nasty capitalism....and daily alarmism/embellishments...Add to it the virtue signaling of "saving the planet" and sprinkle in a little "bad versus evil"  righteousness fire and brimstone doomsday scenarious and here we are.

At some point, that alarmism and those predictions have to ring true. They haven't, and won't. Kicking the can further and further down the road isn't going to cut it. Predictions now of 50 or 100 years in the future will outlive most of us, so it's "your children and grandchildren" that are at "stake".  

I believe we'll know by 2030, not 2050 or longer,  just how wrong we were about the impacts of CO2 and how obviously misguided we allowed science to become in the name of money and politics. Hopefully we won't have been dumb enough to dump trillions of $$$ into wind and solar that will effectively do nothing to the climate, or even more boneheaded and try and continue pursuing stratospheric aerosol injections or worse. Panic does tend to fuel stupidity. Just look at the extinction rebellions for examples. 

Once again you've resorted to name calling and claiming victory.  It's what most of you do when you run out of your own depth on any subject. 

So little substance. 

You're literally a WUWT parody account. 

[homersapien 11,367]

19 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

The oceans will never be acidic. The evidence that the ocean ph has moved from  8.2 to 8.1 in the modern era is iffy at best and is nowhere near "acidifying".  But that "becoming acidic" is a scary set of terms isn't it?

 

What did you say your scientific background was?

https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-coasts-education-resources/ocean-acidification

Ocean acidification

For more than 200 years, or since the industrial revolution began, the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO₂) in the atmosphere has increased due to the burning of fossil fuels and land use change (e.g. increased car emissions and deforestation). During this time, the pH of surface ocean waters has fallen by 0.1 pH units. The pH scale, like the Richter scale, is logarithmic, so this change represents approximately a 30 percent increase in acidity.

The ocean absorbs about 30% of the CO₂ that is released in the atmosphere, and as levels of atmospheric CO₂ increase, so do the levels in the ocean. When CO₂ is absorbed by seawater, a series of chemical reactions occur resulting in the increased concentration of hydrogen ions. This increase causes the seawater to become more acidic and causes carbonate ions to be relatively less abundant.

Carbonate ions are an important building block of structures such as sea shells and coral skeletons. Decreases in carbonate ions can make building and maintaining shells and other calcium carbonate structures difficult for calcifying organisms such as oysters, clams, sea urchins, shallow water corals, deep sea corals, and calcareous plankton. The pteropod, or "sea butterfly," is a tiny sea creature about the size of a small pea. Pteropods are eaten by organisms ranging in size from tiny krill to whales and are a major food source for North Pacific juvenile salmon. When pteropod shells were placed in sea water with pH and carbonate levels projected for the year 2100, the shells slowly dissolved after 45 days. Researchers have already discovered severe levels of pteropod shell dissolutionoffsite link in the Southern Ocean, which encircles Antarctica. Pteropods are small organisms, but imagine the impact if they were to disappear from the marine ecosystem!

Changes in ocean chemistry can affect the behavior of non-calcifying organisms as well. The ability of certain fish, like pollockoffsite link, to detect predators is decreased in more acidic waters. Recent studies have shown that decreased pH levels also affect the ability of larval clownfishoffsite link to locate suitable habitat. When subjected to lower pH levels, the larval clownfish lost their chemosensory ability to distinguish between their favored and protective anemone habitat among the reefs and unfavorable habitats like mangroves. Additionally, greater acidity impairs their ability to distinguish between the "smell" of their own species and that of predators. These two factors create an increased risk of predation. When these organisms are at risk, the entire food web may also be at risk. Ocean acidification is expected to impact many ocean species to varying degrees. While some species will be harmed by ocean acidification, photosynthetic algae and seagrasses may benefit from higher CO₂ conditions in the ocean, as they require CO₂ to live just like plants on land.

Estimates of future carbon dioxide levels, based on business as usual emission scenarios, indicate that by the end of this century the surface waters of the ocean could be nearly 150% more acidic, resulting in a pH that the oceans haven’t experienced for more than 20 million years.

Ocean acidification is currently affecting the entire world’s oceans, including coastal estuaries and waterways. Today, more than two billion people worldwide rely on food from the ocean as their primary source of protein. Many jobs and economies in the U.S. and around the world depend on the fish and shellfish that live in the ocean.

Over the last decade, there has been much focus in the ocean science community on studying the potential impacts of ocean acidification. NOAA's Ocean Acidification Program serves to build relationships between scientists, resource managers, policy makers, and the public in order to research and monitor the effects of changing ocean chemistry on economically and ecologically important ecosystems such as fisheries and coral reefs.

Because sustained efforts to monitor ocean acidification worldwide are only beginning, it is currently impossible to predict exactly how ocean acidification impacts will cascade throughout the marine food chain and affect the overall structure of marine ecosystems. With the pace of ocean acidification accelerating, scientists, resource managers, and policymakers recognize the urgent need to strengthen the science as a basis for sound decision making and action.

 

[homersapien 11,367]

20 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

Our misunderstanding of the magnitude of the effect as a whole versus natural variability, as noted by the failure of simulations versus reality, is a large part of the skepticism...not to mention the ridiculous hyperbole and dramatic theatrics the media bombards us with daily.  

When you want global economic reform, you need global money and power. To get that money and power, you need global buy-in. To get that global buy-in, you need not only a global problem, but you need to create global panic and fear. To create that global fear, you need a scapegoat...especially one that is born from that nasty capitalism....and daily alarmism/embellishments...Add to it the virtue signaling of "saving the planet" and sprinkle in a little "bad versus evil"  righteousness fire and brimstone doomsday scenarious and here we are.

At some point, that alarmism and those predictions have to ring true. They haven't, and won't. Kicking the can further and further down the road isn't going to cut it. Predictions now of 50 or 100 years in the future will outlive most of us, so it's "your children and grandchildren" that are at "stake".  

I believe we'll know by 2030, not 2050 or longer,  just how wrong we were about the impacts of CO2 and how obviously misguided we allowed science to become in the name of money and politics. Hopefully we won't have been dumb enough to dump trillions of $$$ into wind and solar that will effectively do nothing to the climate, or even more boneheaded and try and continue pursuing stratospheric aerosol injections or worse. Panic does tend to fuel stupidity. Just look at the extinction rebellions for examples. 

 

Well, here we are.  You are just another conspiracy nut denier.

The science is staring you right in the face but you think it's all just a massive global conspiracy being perpetuated by every reputable scientific organization in the world because of political motivation.

What absurdly irrational thinking. What motivated ignorance.

 

[homersapien 11,367]

And we hardly need to wait 30-50 years:

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/ten-signs-global-warming-and-climate-change-are-happening

Ten Signs of Global Warming

How Climate Change Impacts Our Planet

Contents

• Arctic sea ice extent is diminishing.
• Ocean heat content is increasing.
• Air temperature over ocean is increasing.
• Sea surface temperature is increasing.
• Global sea level is rising.
• Humidity is increasing (causing more warming).
• Temperature of the lower atmosphere is increasing.
• Air temperature over land is increasing.
• Snow cover is reduced, and snow is melting earlier.
• Glaciers are melting.

[johnnyAU 3,630]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

And we hardly need to wait 30-50 years:

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/ten-signs-global-warming-and-climate-change-are-happening

Ten Signs of Global Warming

How Climate Change Impacts Our Planet

Contents

• Arctic sea ice extent is diminishing.
• Ocean heat content is increasing.
• Air temperature over ocean is increasing.
• Sea surface temperature is increasing.
• Global sea level is rising.
• Humidity is increasing (causing more warming).
• Temperature of the lower atmosphere is increasing.
• Air temperature over land is increasing.
• Snow cover is reduced, and snow is melting earlier.
• Glaciers are melting.

None of it is driven by man made CO2

[johnnyAU 3,630]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Estimates of future carbon dioxide levels, based on business as usual emission scenarios, indicate that by the end of this century the surface waters of the ocean could be nearly 150% more acidic

Estimates....based on scenarios.....by the end of the century....Could be nearly.....

Yep, there were estimates, based on scenarios, that snow would be a thing of the past, and that we could be 4-6 warmer by 2020. There are tons of those "scenarios" and mythical "tipping points" that have never happened. Reality doesn't care about predictions, fear mongering or politics.

[AUDub 11,147]

18 hours ago, homersapien said:

What did you say your scientific background was?

It's a strange bias, thinking numbers are insignificant because of the decimal.

I'll use an example from my current line of work: on an RO system for dialysis patients, we have to get the chlorine and chloramine out of the water before it gets out to the patients. Even the ultrafilters in the RO won't stop chlorine because of its low molecular weight, and if it gets to the patients, haemolytic anemia is the result. 

To do this, we install two large carbon tanks, a primary and a secondary, in series before the RO to catch all of the chlorine. Before they can begin dialysis, the staff at the clinic has to test for chlorine breakthrough after the primary. The cutoff would seem paltry by Johnny's reckoning, as it's only .1ppm. If that's detected after the primary, they can still dialyze, but they have to test the secondary every few minutes until the primary is rebedded with new carbon. 

If there's breakthrough after the secondary carbon tank, the clinic must divert to storage, emergency DI or shut down completely, clamping off the patients from the machines and not risking the return of contaminated blood.

All that over a "paltry" .1ppm of chlorine.

[johnnyAU 3,630]

I do love the ole false equivalence ploy

[AUDub 11,147]

11 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

I do love the ole false equivalence ploy

It's not false equivalence when your arguments are:

"...only by about 4.1 molecules/10,000 in the atmosphere."

"However, the real relevant question is how much of an effect does the last 1.2 molecules/10,000 of CO2 in the atmosphere actually have on the global climate?"