Things are Starting to Heat Up - Part VII 21

[dik]

thread1618-496010:
thread1618-496614:
thread1618-497017:
thread1618-497239:
thread1618-497988:
thread1618-498967:

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[BridgeSmith]

Do you admit that we can predict the surface temperatures of the planets in our solar system that don't have atmosphere?

Predicting the surface temperature of a planet with no atmosphere is easy. All the gases, particulates, etc. and most of all, the varying levels and positions of water vapor swirling around in unpredictable patterns in our atmosphere is what makes prediction of temperatures on Earth virtually impossible.

Step 2: would be to then admit that we can also predict the surface temperatures of other planets (the one with atmospheres) based on the gas content in their atmosphere.

I haven't seen evidence that we can accurately make those predictions, or even that there's a rational model that matches the surface temperatures of those planets. As far as I know, we don't have any idea what the surface temperature of Venus actually is, and if that's true, any models we have are worthless, because their accuracy cannot be verified.

Step 4: Did humans cause the increase in CO2, or was it natural. Or, is it a bit of both. See below link for the billions of tons of CO2 that are released each year from human activity. That 37 Billion tons each year. Just from fossil fuels.

37 Billion tons sounds like alot, but as a percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, is it really? Look it up and get back to us.

Any major problems with my logic so far?

In addition to what I wrote above, plants don't release CO2; they absorb it.

Rod Smith, P.E., The artist formerly known as HotRod10

 

[TugboatEng]

Plants actually do release CO2. They respirate at night when they are not doing photosynthesis. Gotta keep that electron transport chain going 24/7.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Sorry, CO2 is certainly not released by plants (except when they decompose). I was thinking about the plant / animal respiration cycle. That comment was meant as a lead in towards talking about rainforest de-forestation and how that contributes to CO2 increases (because major sources of carbon storage have been removed or weakened).

37 Billion tons of CO2 represents about 0.01% of the weight of all the CO2 in the atmosphere of the entire earth. So, in 10 years it will have increased the CO2 by 0.1%. It's not astronomically large. But, it's not insignificant. Especially if you add it up over a 100 years as it continues to increase.

Here's my math (on how the 37 billion tons of CO2 emissions compare to the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere):

If we take the highest measured concentration of CO2 as 410.28 ppmv, the percentage content would be equal to 0.041028%.

0.041028% (CO2 atmosphere volume) * 28.971 g/mole (average molar mass of dry air) / 44.0087 g/mole (CO2). This will give us 0.0623240117 as the mass percentage of CO2 for the atmosphere.

Then I get, from another source, that the total weight of the earth's atmosphere is about 5.5 quadrillion metric tons. Though this might include a significant weight from water vapor.

Total weight of atmosphere * mass percentage CO2 / weight of the CO2 that is released each year.
(5.5*10^15) * 0.062324 / (37*10^9) = 0.011%​

 

[hokie66]

Then you do agree that we should not commit economic suicide because of predictions that may be wrong, and all to prevent something which we probably can't prevent anyway. I agree, but a lot don't.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Yes. Reasonable mitigation measures should be tried. But, there's no way anyone is committing economic suicide. If the dems try, they will get voted out of office so fast, it will make their heads spin.

Same things will happen in the UK and China and India and everywhere else. If I've got the choice between feeding my family today, vs taking a risk 20 years down the road, we're all going to make the same decision. Regardless of what Greta T, Al G, or John K tell us from their towers of "purity"..... just not going to happen. It goes completely against human nature.

However, there are plenty of things we can do to move in the right direction. Small, but meaningful steps that will make the problem less severe and reduce the cost of mitigation when the time comes.

 

[dik]

...and what happens if you have a massive dought, and millions cannot feed their families. I wonder what sort of political effect that will have?

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[hokie66]

Your decision, dik. I know what mine is. I don't live my life based on speculation.

 

[TugboatEng]

Plants are always emitting CO2. At night their CO2 emissions exceed their O2 emissions. Over a 24 hour cycle, more CO2 is converted to oxygen.

https://www.pthorticulture.com/en/t...4 hours,because plants can experience stress.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

When (or if) that happens, then those people and those places will take action. I'm not sure what type of action we're talking about. It might be war. It might be developing new sources of water / irrigation. I don't know. But, when there is a clear problem (drought), then people will act.

The problem we have right now is we have a nebulous problem, "global warming". Does it mean there could be some flooding somewhere at some time? Sure. But, we don't know when and we don't really know where. Maybe they'll be drought too. But, we don't know when, we don't know where.

If you want me to stop feeding my family today and tomorrow because of some vague promise of future misery, that's a pretty hard sell. Not many people are going to be willing to do that.

Now, we might be willing to tighten our belts a bit and make some minor sacrifices. Like gradually increasing the price of certain energy and lowering the price of other energy so that we don't produce so much CO2 when we cool are house in the summer. I'm getting solar panels installed on my roof right now. It's a pretty big expenditure. But, I think it's worth it in the long run. In the short run (over the next 7 years that I'll be paying off the loan), it will be a major drain on our monthly income.

 

[dik]

...if you look at the deforestation of the rain forests and other tracts of timbers... it may be that trees will have an overall negative impact on the carbon footprint.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[BridgeSmith]

I'm getting solar panels installed on my roof right now. It's a pretty big expenditure. But, I think it's worth it in the long run. In the short run (over the next 7 years that I'll be paying off the loan), it will be a major drain on our monthly income.

That's you choosing to do something that's in your own best interest. That's different than the government, say, banning natural gas appliances. If installing solar panels had a payback period longer than the life of the panels, so it was a cost to you, rather than an investment, would you still be doing it?

Rod Smith, P.E., The artist formerly known as HotRod10

 

[JoshPlumSE]

That's different than the government, say, banning natural gas appliances. If installing solar panels had a payback period longer than the life of the panels, so it was a cost to you, rather than an investment, would you still be doing it?

Probably not. I don't have enough disposable income to make it worth the added expense. If I were rich and wanted to feel better about my carbon footprint, then I might have. But, I'm not.

Personally, I'm not quite convinced about the numbers they claim I'll see in 20+ years.... that's when previous generations of solar panels started really breaking down. But, I think it will be worth it overall. Especially with the government rebate that I'll see on my taxes next year.

 

[BridgeSmith]

Probably not. I don't have enough disposable income to make it worth the added expense. If I were rich and wanted to feel better about my carbon footprint, then I might have. But, I'm not.

The rest of us feel the same way. When you suggest "gradually increasing the price of certain energy", we feel like we're having those extra costs forced upon us, because we are. Btw, that part about "lowering the price of other energy" is not possible. There's no way to decrease the price of energy below it's natural level, without subsidizing it, which means you lower the price, you just made someone else pay for it.

Rod Smith, P.E., The artist formerly known as HotRod10

 

[TugboatEng]

You can talk about replacing energy with energy all you want but we must first assess the true cost of each energy first. Obviously natural gas has a low CO2 footprint than coal. That's fine. I won't bite on other solutions until someone can demonstrate the benefit. And then they must demonstrate the benefit over other uses for the money. Carbon capture is an example of throwing money to the wind, literally.

Did anybody hear Al Gore's speech today? I won't comment.

 

[BridgeSmith]

The only currently available, expandable, carbon-neutral energy source with a true cost less than fossil fuels, is nuclear. The modern nuclear reactor systems are very safe (especially Thorium reactors), and would allow reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel (that radioactive nuclear waste sitting around at all of the nuclear power plants), dramatically reducing its volume and radioactivity.

Rod Smith, P.E., The artist formerly known as HotRod10

 

[dik]

Tipping points...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBKZWKeKYqE

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[JoshPlumSE]

Btw, that part about "lowering the price of other energy" is not possible. There's no way to decrease the price of energy below it's natural level, without subsidizing it, which means you lower the price, you just made someone else pay for it.

There are plenty of ways to lower the price of energy. For example, CA puts all kinds of additional restrictions on refineries over what type of gasoline they must produce. This dramatically increases the cost of gasoline in CA. Eliminate those unnecessary regulations and the price goes down. Not below the "natural" level, of course.

However, that's not what I was talking about. What I was talking about was direct subsidies from one type of power to another. If we're saying that coal is bad (because it produces so much more CO2 per MW of power produced) then the extra taxes that coal pays goes directly to subsidize the cost of building CO2 free nuclear plants.

We're saying there is a price to society for emitting too much CO2. So, if you want the cost of power to better include that cost this is the way to do it. Force the more problematic power to pay for its own replacement. Once we've done that with coal, then we decide what to do next. It might be similar. Tax the most inefficient power plants (in terms of CO2 emissions) and use those taxes to again pay for nuclear (solar and wind as well, if you like).

 

[dik]

Maybe, people will have to 'cut back' on their use of it, too? Things may not remain as they are.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik

 

[BridgeSmith]

We're saying there is a price to society for emitting too much CO2.

I'm saying that's an unproven assumption, and as such, we shouldn't be interfering in the free market price of any energy sources.

Rod Smith, P.E., The artist formerly known as HotRod10

 

[dik]

I disagree... if something is harmful, then the use of it should be controlled and regulated. It's not happening yet, but could happen in future. I have no idea of how extreme climate change can be.

-----*****-----
So strange to see the singularity approaching while the entire planet is rapidly turning into a hellscape. -John Coates

-Dik