The Politics of Climate Change: Green New Deal And Other Madness

thorbiorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Collective madness as a result of weather out of the normal has happened before. The following video
Dr. Baliunas on Weather Cooking from Climate Always Changes | Climate Change 101 explains a couple of instances during the period of the little ice age from 1550 to 1700 where the weather was extreme and on one of those occasions it resulted in hysteria..

First, on August 3rd 1562, a front with thunderstorms several hundred kilometers long struck Central Europe, it raged for a few hours which was followed by hail that lasted until midnight. The hail was so severe it killed birds, unprotected horses and cows, it destroyed vineyards and crops. 74 years later in late Spring on May 26, 1626 one meter of hail fell over parts of Germany followed by a severe frost that froze rivers, made grapevine plants explode, killed off the barley and wheat and denuded the trees. As a result of this unseasonal frost there came a demand to burn withches, they were accused of weather cooking with many thousands of people killed in parts of Germany.
James A. Marusek has catalogued some 14,000 extreme weather events covering the years from 1 A.D. to 1900 A.D.


But for some reason, people have short memories, or perhaps weather cycles are slightly longer than a generation. Whatever the case, people often say “there had not been such weather in 100 years” – as Dr. Sallie Baliunas recounts in this video on “Weather Cooking.”

“Weather Cooking” was a crime that witches were accused of in the Medieval and Little Ice Age periods. When the weather got bad – it was clear to the ‘locals’ that someone had been up to something.



So – witches were executed for ‘cooking’ bad weather. (No wonder weathermen and weather women always look uncomfortable when their predictions of a nice day turned to rain!)

There are lots of comparisons as well by numerous authors about how the ‘green’ movement has adopted many of the more extreme religious overtones of that period of the hysterical past…when people were executed for cooking the weather. Of course they likely denied it. And that was proof they were guilty.
 

thorbiorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
A response to The Ice Age Cometh! Forget Global Warming! actually another thread, but this comment became much more than a talk about ice age, as it deals with some of the arguments about CO2 and its behaviour in the geophysical system:
For those who might have missed it on Sott, astrophysicist Piers Corbyn (brother of Jeremy) lays it all out:
[...]
From the transcript fo the Youtube
02:28 all 02:30 all sides will agree this that there is 02:32 50 times more carbon dioxide in the sea 02:36 than there is in the air 02:39 okay now that means and there's going to 02:43 be a level between them and the level 02:45 the balance level between the two of 02:47 them is the saturation level of co2 in 02:51 the air will depend on the temperature 02:53 of the sea you warm up the sea a bit 02:55 like warm up a glass of water some gases 02:57 will come off nitrogen oxygen carbon 02:59 dioxide will come off you cool down a 03:01 glass of water and it can absorb more of 03:04 those gases that's very straightforward 03:06 very simple and very basic physics 03:08 because there's 50 times more co2 in the 03:12 sea than in the air it means basically 03:14 whatever man does to the air will have 03:17 no effect because the co2 will 03:18 compensate if man puts extra co2 into 03:22 the air or nature or termites or anybody 03:25 put co2 into the air it will just go 03:27 into the sea depending on the Seas 03:29 temperature and if you take it out of 03:32 the air then it will come out of the sea 03:34 and the levels will stay the same 03:36 according to what's called Henry's law 03:39 issue the equilibrium levels of a liquid 03:43 and a gas at a certain temperature so 03:46 the co2 theory is wrong from the start 03:51 even if you believe a co2 is having an
03:54 impact the co2 levels can't change under 03:57 man's influence is a fact is the Sun 04:00 rules the sea temperature and the sea 04:03 temperature rules the climate
Piers Corbyn explains why reducing CO2 is not going to help by referring to Henry's Law. In this post there will be much more about Henry's Law, much more. I thought it would be a simple question, but it wasn't because in the process of understanding the small problem others kept coming. Before getting lost in the details, that may be relevant in some situations, Corbyn's argues that pumping CO2 out of the atmosphere will not help, because there is much more in the sea that then will be released. I think he is right, but others might say that CO2 appears faster in the atmosphere than it can be absorbed in the short term, and if they then believe that CO2 is all the fault of humans and the whole AGW ideology, then they think they have to do something.

Explanation of Henry's Law
If you like video there is a general explanation on Khan Academy, but it takes a few minutes: Henry's law and an example showing the difference in solubility between oxygen and carbon dioxide:

There is also this explanation Henry's law - Wikipedia in text:
In physical chemistry, Henry's law is a gas law that states that the amount of dissolved gas in a liquid is proportional to its partial pressure above the liquid. The proportionality factor is called Henry's law constant. It was formulated by the English chemist William Henry, who studied the topic in the early 19th century. In his publication about the number of gases absorbed by water,[1] he described the results of his experiments:

..."water takes up, of gas condensed by one, two, or more additional atmospheres, a quantity which, ordinarily compressed, would be equal to twice, thrice, &c. the volume absorbed under the common pressure of the atmosphere."

An example where Henry's law is at play is in the depth-dependent dissolution of oxygen and nitrogen in the blood of underwater divers that changes during decompression, leading to decompression sickness. An everyday example is given by one's experience with carbonated soft drinks, which contain dissolved carbon dioxide. Before opening, the gas above the drink in its container is almost pure carbon dioxide, at a pressure higher than atmospheric pressure. After the bottle is opened, this gas escapes, moving the partial pressure of carbon dioxide above the liquid to be much lower, resulting in degassing as the dissolved carbon dioxide comes out of solution.
I am going to come back to Henry's Law but just one observation, because it seems not all scientists would use it as part of an explanation or maybe the journalist mixed it up:
But will the oceans always be able to take up that proportion of human CO2 emissions year in and year out?

Probably not in the near term, said Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego marine chemist Andrew Dickson.
[...]
Dickson noted that although the oceans presently take up about one-fourth of the excess CO2 human activities put into the air, that fraction was significantly larger at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. That’s for a number of reasons, starting with the simple one that as one dissolves CO2 into a given volume of seawater, there is a growing resistance to adding still more CO2.
I have some difficulty understanding how the above makes sense according to Henry's law, if there is an equilibrium between the amount in the gas and the amount in the water, a higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere should alow for more CO2 to be absorbed by the water, but is he suggesting it is not as proportionate as one should expect? There is a slide show https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/18/07/oa-chemistry-dickson-050916.pdf with some more ocean chemistry. From the above there was a recommendation to consult the Guide to Best Practices for Ocean CO2 Measurements There they introduce a concept, fugacity, that revolve around the reality that CO2 does not behave completely like an ideal gas. The explanation in one chapter is followed by another filled with chemistry and mathematics. If one takes a look at one illustration from page 3 of chapter 2 there is:
View attachment 32462
The interpretation, I have is that the deviation of CO2 from being an ideal gas is more pronounced when it is at lower temperatures, when it is a pure CO2 gas, and less when it is mixed up with air. One possible explanation for this variation could be that CO2 is a more heavy molecule than both nitrogen (CO2 is three times heavier) and oxygen (1/3 heavier). At the same time, reading the numbers in the diagramme, this deviation from behaving as expected for an ideal gas is small, like less than one percent. This is important when one needs to get everything right, but I can still not find a clear explanation for the statement they have that the ocean absorbs relatively less now than at the beginning of the industrial revolution. To me a better explanation might be inertia, as there is only so much water surface compared to the kilometers of atmosphere above the ocean. Building high chimneys might reduce the time it takes to get close to water. Also there are more factories away from the sea and in hot climates and not cold Britain, where CO2 is less readily absorbed by the water. Maybe one could counter such arguments by claiming that the proximity to water is not so important if much of the CO2 that gets absorbed by the ocean actually does so indirectly by receiving rain that has absorbed CO2 in the atmosphere. However I don't know which plays a greater role. In the following I will work with Henry's law assuming that CO2 is pretty close to behaving as a natural gas.

Henry's Law and some calculations
The reason a gas exerts pressure is because the gas molecules move. The more they move, or the more that are confined to a unit of space the higher the pressure. If we from outside wish to change the speed of the many tiny gas molecules, we can change the temperature. If it is warmer, the molecules mover faster and the pressure increases, if it is colder they move slower, and the pressure of the gas decreases. This relationship is expressed in the ideal gas law:
The ideal gas law, also called the general gas equation, is the equation of state of a hypothetical ideal gas. It is a good approximation of the behavior of many gases under many conditions, although it has several limitations. It was first stated by Émile Clapeyron in 1834 as a combination of the empirical Boyle's law, Charles's law, Avogadro's law, and Gay-Lussac's law.[1] The ideal gas law is often written as

{\displaystyle PV=nRT,}
{\displaystyle PV=nRT,}

where {\displaystyle P}
P
, {\displaystyle V}
V
and {\displaystyle T}
T
are the pressure, volume and temperature; {\displaystyle n}
n
is the number of moles of gas; and {\displaystyle R}
R
is the ideal gas constant. It is the same for all gases.Ideal gas law - Wikipedia
Ideal gas law - Wikipedia
One mole of gas is the mass of 6.022 x 10^23 molecules. If we take air, it consists of various gases including nitrogen, oxygen, argon and others which make up about 0.4 % including water vapor and carbon dioxide. Each gas contributes to the pressure we experience in an approximate proportion to how much volume they take op.

There are tables that show how much water is needed to dissolve one mole of the various gases. In order for one mole of nitrogen to be dissolved in water at 25 degrees or 298 Kelvin at one atmosphere of pressure, one needs 1639 liters of water, for one mole of oxygen one needs 769 liters, but for CO2, carbon dioxide, one only needs 29.4 liters of water. One liter water is also 55,55 moles of H2O since one mole of water is 18 grams (The two moles of hydrogen atoms weigh 1 gram each and one mole of oxygen 16 grams, we combine them and get 1 mole of H2O, weighing 18 grams. 18 grams per mole times 55,55 moles per liter gives us 1000 grams per liter). Therefore in some tables they will tell you that in order to dissolve one mole of CO2 at one atmosphere you will need around 1630 moles of water [1630 atm · mol soln / molgas]. (This is approximately 55.55 moles of per liter of water times 29.4 atm liter of water/moles of CO2) The different methods of listing the Henry constants are explained both in the Wiki and in this document: Use Henry's Law to Calculate Concentration of Gas in a Solution

The amount that can be dissolved varies very much with the temperature, as I alluded to previously when I mentioned factories in hot climates versus cold climates. At a lower temperature more CO2 can be dissolved in water. From the diagram below, it appears that cold water at 0 degrees can hold twice as much CO2 as warm water at 25 degrees when the pressure from CO2 in the gas above the water is the same. https://demonstrations.wolfram.com/TemperatureDependenceOfHenrysLawConstant/
View attachment 32459
The units along the y-axis are different and not described, but the idea is, as mentioned, that at one atmosphere of pressure one needs 1630 moles of water to dissolve on mole of CO2.

If we compare the solubility of oxygen with that of carbon dioxide at 25 degrees, then we have 769 liters/ ("/" is divided by) 29.4 liters which gives us that carbon dioxide is 26 times more soluble in water than oxygen, at least when the temperature is 25 degrees.

In the air, there are by volume 20.95 % of oxygen according to Air - Molecular Weight and Composition while CO2 is around 410 ppm (parts per million) according to Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide | NOAA Climate.gov 410 ppm is 410/1000,000 or 0.041 %. If one compares the volume percentage of oxygen with that of CO2, that is 20.95 % / 0.041 % then we have that the volume amount of oxygen, O2 is about 510 times larger than the volume amount of carbon dioxide, CO2.

If we compare the results in two previous paragraphs, then on the one hand we found that CO2 is 26 times more soluble in water than oxygen. We also found that oxygen, in the air we breathe by volume takes up 510 more space than CO2. If this is true then we should find 510/26 or about 20 times more oxygen than CO2 dissolved in the water.

The ICCP in their report have thought about storing CO2 in the deep ocean. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/srccs_chapter6-1.pdf there is this illustration:View attachment 32467
Since the pressure increases rapidly with depth, (one atmosphere for every 10,33 meters), then the ocean could contain more CO2, just like a bottle of sparling water contains more than the usual water.
See also Ocean storage of carbon dioxide - Wikipedia

These people wish to vilify CO2, so essential for life, rather than allowing it to find a place where it wants, and have a chance to get a life, quite literally, as say carbon in a plant, oxygen for breathing or? Most of what they wish to bury is not carbon, it is oxygen. If one mole of CO2 is 44 grams, the 32 are from oxygen, only 12 from carbon. Isn't this all sadly symbolic?

For something more uplifting consider this shell model of carbon dioxide from Shell Model of Carbon Dioxide

1573845973785.png
And why not present the story, from the same page, behind the model which tells us something about cooperation at a very fundamental level, an expression of deeper principles.
The carbon atom (in the middle) has four electrons in its outer shell.
The two oxygen atoms each has six electrons in their outer shells.
To complete their shells (which all atoms want to do), every one of these atoms needs to have 8 electrons in its outer shell.
So the central carbon needs to gain 4 electrons, and each oxygen atom needs to gain 2.

Because of the cloud-like nature of the electron, it can be in several places at once. An electron can move round two atoms at the same time. If an atom shares one of its electrons with another atom, BOTH atoms gain an electron, so filling a hole in their outer shells. So atoms join together to share pairs of electrons.

The carbon shares two of its electrons with each oxygen, so each oxygen gains two electrons and hence gains a full outer shell. Each oxygen shares two of its electrons with the carbon, so the carbon gains four electrons, and so gets a full outer shell too.

Each pair of electrons is called a covalent bond. So the carbon atom has 4 covalent bonds, two with each oxygen atom. We call these DOUBLE BONDs.
Isn't it beautiful?
 

c.a.

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Even more insane climate change policy's, while pushing the Musk, / California cartel agenda.


:boat: (Quick, 3 minute nonsense read)
Snip:
The California Coastkeeper Alliance released its Ocean Climate Resiliency Action Plan Wednesday, a roadmap to mitigate the effects of climate change and sea level rise on coastal areas like northern San Diego County.

The plan includes objectives such as recycling 100% of wastewater along the coast by 2040, requiring the use of nitrate removal technology at wastewater treatment plants, establishing a state program for wetlands restoration and creating a state fund to help coastal communities respond to sea level rise without using harmful tactics like sea walls.

“The sea level on California’s coast is projected to rise by more than a foot over the next 40 years, while ocean acidification and hypoxia have enormous impacts on the health and productivity of our marine ecosystems,” CCA Executive Director Sean Bothwell said.



Meanwhile in Europe:
 

thorbiorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
The following is from Denmark, the neighbour of Thunberg Sweden, so take the following as a case that may or may not have relevance for other countries. I used a machine to translate, Yandex, with a few changes for understanding, hopefully enough for anyone interested. The topic are the plans to reduce the emission of CO2 by 70 % compared to 1990. In the meantime the population has grown by about 14 % or 700,000. It was published in Berlingske Tidende. b.dk

What does it cost to reach the 70% target? Without knowledge of costs and resources, there is a risk of expensive misinvestment.

The facts must be on the table.

By FREDE VESTERGAARD

When politicians negotiate finance laws, there are always economic assessments of the consequences that the law will have for, among other things:a. unemployment / employment, distribution, total production, taxes and budget balance. Both the government's own economists and the independent economic experts make analyses for politicians and the public.

At the moment, politicians are negotiating not only new finance laws, but also a climate law to bind future politicians to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 70% by 2030 compared to 1990.

Denmark's current 2030 commitment is set out in the EU to 40 percent, and Denmark will, according to the Klimarådet beyond with a calculated reduction of 47 percent with the already agreed policy.

Analyse: Status for Danmarks klimamålsætninger og -forpligtelser 2018

But the government has not provided a calculation of what it will cost to reduce by 70 percent, or how it should be done. Nor can it be done in such a short space of time – ten years – or what the distributive consequences will be for different income groups. Let alone the leak, that is. how much of the Danish deduction moves abroad by means of an ambitious intervention. F.ex. if beef production is restricted without at the same time limiting the consumption of beef by the Danes. You're about to commit to the target without knowing the cost.

It is understandable that the former Novo Nordisk top manager Lars Rebien Sørensen, in Berlingske, has talked about the harsh 70% target ” destroying social infrastructure” in Denmark.

Instead of costs and means, politicians are currently negotiating how and whether the climate law can be made binding on the government. And whether the minister for climate can be held accountable in accordance with the act of ministerial responsibility, the partial objectives of which are being achieved along the way. The left parties would like to bind future civil governments, while the Social Democrats, is due to that they may also sit with the government after the next election.

Analysechef Otto Brøns-Petersen from CEPOS, who has previously worked in the central administration, has calculated that the economic cost 26 billion dollars each year to reduce by 70 percent depending on how it's done. But it can also be done for just as little as SEK 6 billion. What does the government say about these calculations? And does it go for the cheap option or the expensive option?

Samfundsøkonomiske omkostninger ved 60 pct. og 70 pct. drivhusgasreduktion i 2030

From 1990 to 2018 CO2 emissions have been reduced by approximately 35 per cent, Danish statistics have recently established. This has been partly achieved by moving emissions from Denmark to abroad.

To reduce the emissions, which were 71 million. tonnes in 1990, by 70% in 2030, we will have to reduce emissions over the next ten years just as much as in the previous 28 years. It will be a huge challenge if the climate law does not allow the purchase of quotas abroad. In addition, very large discharges from Danish ships, aircraft and lorries abroad, which are not normally included in the emissions, are not even covered by the 70% target.

If this figure is taken into account, total CO2 emissions have not fallen at all since 1990, but have risen from around 90 million tonnes in 1990 to 108 million. tonnes in 2018.


https://www.dst.dk/Site/Dst/Udgivelser/nyt/GetPdf.aspx?cid=29401

The risk of committing to 70% the goal without knowing the cost and the means is that we are too early to embark on major misinvestment motivated by the best of intentions. This has happened before in other contexts. Here are a handful of examples of quick and less thought-out decisions.

First, the so-called diesel scandal. It is basically a political scandal rather than a car manufacturer's responsibility, as is usually known. It began with an EU decision in 1998 to promote the sale of diesel cars rather than petrol cars. This was to be done by changing car taxes and fuel taxes. As diesel cars drive about 15 percent longer on the liter it saves CO2 emissions.

The rise of diesel in Europe: the impact on health and pollution

Indeed, the proportion of diesel cars sold in the EU also increased from 36% in 2001 to 55% in 2011, to fall again after the scandal.

The fact that it saw increased particulate pollution and nitrogen oxides in the streets meant that the EU system was misdirected. The key was that the EU could show the rest of the world at the UN conferences on climate change that the EU – unlike the UNITED states - took the Kyoto agreement from 1997, serious and reduced emissions.

However, the commission gradually tightened the rules on particulate emissions and NOx. However, as car manufacturers – not just Volkswagen – gradually found it difficult to meet the requirements, they began to cheat the measuring equipment. Of course, this cannot be justified, but the diesel scandal began with politicians and the European Commission.

Another example is the Israeli-Danish Car Project Better Place, which was to make battery-powered electric cars instead of charging. In the first place, they were to drive in Israel and Denmark. The state-owned DONG shot 200 million kroner in the project, and in Denmark 18 automated battery-switching stations were built. But that was not sold very many cars, not even in Israel, Better Place Global went bankrupt in may 2013 with a loss for investors of between 3 and 3.5 billion. crowns. They were too early. The solution for electric cars has since become solid batteries. Technology and long range batteries overtook an apparently good idea.

Better Place: what went wrong for the electric car startup?

FAKTA: Better Place Danmark slukker for strømmen

A third project Inbicon, located at Kalundborg, to produce 2. generation bioethanol of biomass waste as straw. Inbicon was a subsidiary of DONG to which the then wholly-owned state company spent 800-900 million kroner. Money's wasted. For every unit of energy used in the process, 0.7 came out.

DONG opgiver ethanol-drømme

A fourth example is the political decisions in the United States.a. Copenhagen, Aarhus, Sønderborg It was the result of the general climate change after COP15 in Copenhagen in 2009. A number of coal-fired combined heat and power plants have since been converted to fire wood and straw for billions, since CO2 emissions from these plants do not count in Danish emissions. Therefore, Denmark now imports wood pellets and wood chips-3,8 million. tonnes in 2018 - from foreign forests as large as Fyn and Sjælland combined, the data have been calculated by the weekly magazine, The Engineer. Every year.

https://ing.dk/artikel/danmark-importerer-traepiller-skove-saa-store-sjaelland-fyn-tilsammen-213893De

However, the decisions taken by the local authorities were very good for DONG. Among the initiates was the conversion from coal to wood is called ”the green rabbit” (as power plant owner DONG pulled out of the hat for being able to demonstrate green goodwill, mind you, at taxpayers ' expense because biomass, unlike coal, are exempt). Today, it would hardly have gone through because of the concern for biodiversity and doubts about the real CO2 neutrality of firing wood. Instead, they would probably have replaced the coals with gas for the time being.

https://klimaraadet.dk/sites/default/files/downloads/klimaraadet_biomassens_rapportno4_digi_01.pdf

The examples illustrate the old saying that haste makes waste.
This is the debate that is happening in Denmark, although I somehow doubt the above will get much attention. The 70 % goal appears as a ruse to convince people they should destroy their society. It may happen for other contributing reasons, still one may wonder why this is necessary. For now I prefer to consider the situation from the viewpoint of mass psychology. This article gives some ideas: Transmarginal Inhibition -- Sott.net
 
Last edited:

thorbiorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
There was a few days after this story Anti-Russian sanctions based on fraudster’s tales? Spiegel finds Magnitsky narrative fed to West by Browder is riddled with lies

Make the world pay for it? ‘Green New Deal’ sponsor wants to sanction everyone for climate change ‘crimes’
26 Nov, 2019 01:31 / Updated 14 hours ago

Green New Deal sponsor Senator Ed Markey (D-Massachusetts) is seeking to expand US sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Act to foreign individuals and companies involved in “significant actions that exacerbate climate change.”

While Democrats have denounced President Donald Trump’s plan to build a wall on the southern US border and make Mexico pay for it, Markey’s proposal seems to take that approach and apply it to the entire world, when US climate change efforts are concerned.

“As we fight to enact a Green New Deal here at home, we must use all of the tools or our foreign policy to change the behavior of companies and individuals most responsible for exacerbating the climate crisis,” Markey said on Monday, announcing his new bill.


The 2012 Magnitsky Act, expanded to the entire globe in 2016, allows the US government to ban all trade with – and seize the property of – people and entities it claims violate human rights. Markey now wants those powers levied against those responsible for building coal power plants or logging in rainforests, for example. Such measures “could help ensure that efforts to address climate change do not worsen global inequality,” says the 19-page draft of the bill.

His ‘Targeting Environmental and Climate Recklessness Act of 2019’ would bring the US “closer to a complete… global strategy that matches the magnitude of the climate crisis,” the senator added.

Markey famously co-sponsored the ‘Green New Deal’ plan, unveiled with Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) in February, only to see it crash and burn in the Senate when the Republican majority put it up for a vote. Though Ocasio-Cortez has been widely mocked over the proposal to outlaw airplanes and “farting cows,”the platform has been embraced by several candidates running for the Democrats’ 2020 presidential nomination, notably AOC’s own mentor Bernie Sanders.

One of the many criticisms directed against the proposal by Republicans is that it would cost up to $93 trillion to implement. Though Democrats have disputed that estimate, they’ve conceded the proposal was too vague to put an accurate price tag on. Markey has argued that doing nothing will result in a 10-percent loss to the US GDP by 2090, though those projections have also been challenged.

Markey’s sanctions bill faces equally daunting odds of making it through the Senate as the original Green New Deal. There might be something else to it, however. Multiple US media outlets – such as HuffPost and The Hill – have suggested that the 73-year-old senator could be using it to attract support from climate activists in his upcoming primary battle against Rep. Joe Kennedy III (D-Massachusetts), the 39-year-old scion of that commonwealth’s most famous political dynasty.
That the proposal for these Global New Green Climate sanctions imposed from the US come so soon after a main stream German magazine like Der Spiegel lost confidence in the Browder scam is interesting.
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Came across a tweet that sums up the way in which climate science has become thoroughly infected with ideology leading to massive ignorance and serious danger for our collective future.


How can this guy expect to be objective about a massively complex and poorly understood discipline like climate science when he is already so identified with a belief about it that he breaks down crying, and apparently expects to continue to do so for the next week while attending the UN climate conference in Madrid?

His bio reads:


"I'm a Ph.D. Candidate studying Glaciology and Paleoclimatology at UMass-Amherst and soon to be a post-doctoral fellow at The Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Colombia University."

"My research focuses on interactions between ice sheets and the global climate system in earth's past, present, and future."
But this guy's tendency to over-emotionality isn't limited to his belief that the climate is screwed and we're all to blame. He's also very emotional about diversity in science.

"I share my interest in Geoscience with others through teaching and outreach. I strive to build, support, and participate in a community of Earth Scientists that reflects the full range of diversity we find out in the wonderful world we study."

"While you're here please check out an initiative I'm passionate about: BRIDGE."
BRIDGE is a project at the University of Massachusetts that:

"aims to increase the representation and visibility of early career scientists from underrepresented groups to combat attrition of underrepresented graduate students. BRIDGE will increase the diversity of invited speakers on campus while providing a space for open and constructive conversations between current graduate students and early career researchers on the obstacles faced by underrepresented groups in STEM." [...]

Topics covered include, but are not limited to, discussions on pedagogy, participation in outreach, and/or narratives on identity in STEM.
His area of research focuses on the Greenland ice sheet and a recent paper he co-authored states that "the sensitivity of the Greenland ice sheet to climate forcing is of key importance in assessing its contribution to past and future sea level rise".


Of course, nowhere in the paper or his awareness is there any hint of the recently discovered comet/meteorite crater underneath Greenland's ice sheet that was undoubtedly a major cause of the massive sea level rise during the period he is looking at.

Peak subjectivity and ignorance is here.
 

Palinurus

The Living Force
Of course, nowhere in the paper or his awareness is there any hint of the recently discovered comet/meteorite crater underneath Greenland's ice sheet that was undoubtedly a major cause of the massive sea level rise during the period he is looking at.

It would have been very difficult to enclose that in a paper which was written in 2017 and published in February or even March 2018:

Publication History

  • Issue Online: 15 March 2018
  • Version of Record online: 19 February 2018
  • Accepted manuscript online: 07 February 2018
  • Manuscript accepted: 31 January 2018
  • Manuscript revised: 24 January 2018
  • Manuscript received: 07 September 2017
 

Joe

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
It would have been very difficult to enclose that in a paper which was written in 2017 and published in February or even March 2018:
Good point. I'd amend that comment then to: "Of course, nowhere in the paper or his awareness is there any reference to the well-known hundredfold spike in the concentration of platinum in Greenland ice cores that are dated to 12,890 YBP that is highly suggestive of a meteorite impact."

Btw, the Greenland crater is disputed largely because some say that it is an "improbably recent impact" and that "an impact of this size should occur only once every few million years". :shock:
 

Hello H2O

Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
Great video from John Stossel. Interesting when he says he invites all of the climate alarmists to his talks, but never will anyone come. And he said he has tried to have Al Gore on his show, and he never replies.

Just goes to show, propaganda only works as a one way street. It does not like to be challenged.

 

thorbiorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Just goes to show, propaganda only works as a one way street. It does not like to be challenged.
From some Extinction Rebellion coordinator notes I found some time ago:
"Don’t have a Q & A. This allows the extreme people who want it to be one way to bring everyone else down. 80% are normal people 20% political absolutists. There to appropriate your energy." While it is not uncommon that organizers prefer people at their venues that are interested in learning what they wish to say and to teach, the problem here is that the other side does not show up.

Perhaps one could also see it from a different angle. The US is a big country, maybe the people invited did not have time. Also we don't know who they invited. If I rent a room in town and invite some, who consider themselves to be big shots, to argue about the climate, it is possible there will be a number of empty chairs. When I watched the video, I also thought what if the climate alarmist turn out to be justified in their alarmism, but not for the reasons they expect? What if those who claim all is as usual turn out to be wrong, but again not for the reasons they expect?

What are the chances of changing the focus for and against global warming? Joe is trying, and I will try to play with his idea in terms of the energy of the large impactor that hit northern Greenland. In the process I will draw on posts in other threads, so for the most part I am not going to link to original papers, because they can be found there. It is going to be long and windy, but at the end I hope to find out how much energy such an object could melt and how much the sea would rise if all the melted ice from the impact left the Greenlandic ice sheet and became a part of the ocean. The conclusion I reach is that the energy of such a large asteroid corresponds to five times the present yearly total global energy consumption. Under the very unrealistic assumption that all the energy of the asteroid was used to melt ice and nothing more, the seas would rise around 2 cm.
Good point. I'd amend that comment then to: "Of course, nowhere in the paper or his awareness is there any reference to the well-known hundredfold spike in the concentration of platinum in Greenland ice cores that are dated to 12,890 YBP that is highly suggestive of a meteorite impact."

Btw, the Greenland crater is disputed largely because some say that it is an "improbably recent impact" and that "an impact of this size should occur only once every few million years".
Small impact and big impact
In Near-Earth objects and close calls I made some calculations that showed that on any day there will be on average from 2000-4000 meteoroids of 2.8 m and more moving between the Earth and out to the distance of the Moon, counting the space all around the Earth and assuming about 6 of those hit the planet each year. If one stays with the 3 that are official then we are down to 1000-2000. Due to fast speeds and both the Earth and the meteoroids moving at thousands of km per hour, even a slow meteoroid moving at only 10,000 m/s (6 miles per second) would stay less than 24 hours in this space, most of them less time and on average probably only a few hours.

The calculated number of flybys per day means that on any starry night we go for a walk and look up to the Moon, then in a sphere around the Earth and out to the average distance of the Moon there should at a few hundred meteoroids flying by with a potential total impact energy of more than 1 kt. Since the space we occupy in the big sphere space reaching out to the Moon only includes 1/200,000 the chances of being hit are fortunately small.

Working with the energy of a an impactor
The data from NASA, mentioned in this post by Pashalis show that a meteoroid with a size of about 2.8 m can be counted on to deliver more than one kt of TNT if it hits, assuming it only travels at 10,800 m/s and most travel faster. This is a starting point to discuss the energy involved when meteoroids or asteroids impact the Earth, including the one that hit Greenland.

To begin with what we know, and for a few visual representations, here and here I collected some videos from 2019 alone that together give an idea of what different estimated sizes for fireballs calculated in kt will mean when they are observed, including two that were too small to make the cut for the NASA database.

1 kiloton of TNT (kt) is equivalent to 4.184E+12 joules. (See this post). 1 kiloton of TNT is the explosive energy contained in a 1000 kg of TNT.

The Hiawatha impact (See this post) is calculated to have delivered about ~3 × 10^21 J of energy joules. This calculation is based on the size of the crater, an estimate of the size of the impactor, its know composition and estimated speed. Now we can try to find out how many kt the Hiawatha impactor corresponded to.

To make the above numbers more workable, let us write 4.184E+12 joules as 4.184 × 10^12 J To find the total impact energy of the Hiawatha impactor measured in kt we can say that the Hiawatha impactor's energy in kt is 3 × 10^21 J/(4.184 × 10^12 J/kt) =717,017,208 kt ~7 × 10 ^8 kt The size of the nuclear bombs that the US used to terrorize Japan with was 13-18 kt (Hiroshima) and 18-22 kt (Nagasaki). So this impact in Greenland had an energy that was 35,000,000 larger than the largest of the two bombs. That is too big a number to make any sense, but we can try another.

From World energy consumption - Wikipedia one finds the Global energy consumption in 2013 to be in the order of 5.67 × 10^20 joules 13,541 Mtoe) In 2018 it was more like 14,000 Mtoe.
About "toe" is
The tonne of oil equivalent (toe) is a unit of energy defined as the amount of energy released by burning one tonne of crude oil. It is approximately 42 gigajoules .... Multiples of the toe are used, in particular the megatoe (Mtoe, one million toe)
If one toe is 42 gigajoules or 42 × 10^9 J, then one Mtoe is a million times more or 42 × 10^15 J If we take 14,000 of those we have 14,000 × 42 × 10^15 J =14 × 42 × 10^18 J = 5.88 × 10^20 J ~ 6 × 10^20 J. If we compare this number with the estimated total impact energy of 3 × 10^21 J as we can do by dividing the larger number with the smaller number then we find that 3 × 10^21 J /6 × 10^20 J = 30 × 10^20 J /6 × 10^20 J = 5 That means the energy of the impactor that hit Greenland had an energy that was 5 times larger than the total human energy consumption in 2018. Moreover according to the report mentioned in the post the ground under the crater is warmer than should be expected. From research on crater on Mars it is known that residual heat from an impact this size can linger on for 100 ka or 100,000 years. In other words, although this crater due to sufficient water flow will cool down faster, it seems the proposed impact is still making a small contribution to the heat balance of the planet.

The asteroid that hit Greenland hit at the edge of the present day ice sheet, it is not yet clear if there was any ice when it fell. Models show the impactor would make a whole 7 km deep and a crater 20 km wide which then would collapse on itself within about a minute and leave a 31 km wide crater 800 meters deep.

Now let's imagine we could use all the energy of this object to melt ice. The question turns out to be complicated, because what is the temperature in an ice sheet? Which ice sheet? Where on the ice sheet What time of the year? Besides what about secondary effects? When does the ice sheet really move and when does it stay? Maybe the ice would not have to be melted directly to end up in the sea and be melted later?

After presenting af few of the problems with determining the physical properties of the ice, we are going to melt with our asteroid energy.

Here is one picture from https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~kite/doc/cuffey_ch_9.pdf
1575373822963.png
Here we see the temperature rises as we go down deeper in the ice sheet. One reason is friction, because as the ice moves across obstacles heat is generated. Heat is also generated, as it is deformed within when one part flows quicker or slower than another or when more pressure is applied from above due to new snow piling up. Another source of heat is coming from the Earth itself. This old paper from 1955 Ice Movement and Temperature Distribution in Glaciers and Ice Sheets* mentions:
The rate of outflow of geothermal heat (q) is roughly uniform over the world at about 38 cal./cm.2/year 6 which gives a gradient of 1° C. per 44 m. at the base of the ice sheet.
In a thick ice sheet the pressure affects the pressure melting point of water. From Temperature distribution in glaciers and ice sheets - Environmental Change
The melting temperature of ice decreases with increasing pressure at a rate of 0.072°C per 106 pascals (MPa; lPa = INm-2). As an example, the pressure at the base of a 2000 m thick glacier or ice sheet is about 17.6 MPa, corresponding to a lowering of the melting point to —1.27°C.
The only way the above makes sense is if 106 pascals is in fact 1×10^6 pascal which is 1MPa. At any rate, at the bottom of the ice sheet is may be blow zero and still be like water.

I don't think we will need the next excerpt, but I still found it interesting that they introduce the issue of cycles. Ice Movement and Temperature Distribution in Glaciers and Ice Sheets*
(b) Catastrophic advances of glaciers
If circumstances outlined in this paper produce basal ice temperatures below melting point, a greater shear stress will be required to produce ice flow. This means that greater surface slopes and ice thickness will be formed. Now if the basal ice temperature in such an ice sheet or glacier is raised by some phenomenon—the most likely one being by an increase in ice movement over the bed—the shear stress due to the greater ice thickness formerly accumulated will be in excess of that required to make the ice flow at this higher temperature. As this is an unstable state the flow may continue to increase until the basal temperature reaches melting point, leading finally to a relatively rapid advance of the glacier front. With basal temperatures now at melting point the flow and ice thickness may remain similar to that of a temperate glacier until conduction and the downward “advection” of cold ice again start to lower the temperature of the ice rock interface with consequent thickening of the glacier. Such a chain of events may well be cyclic with a very long period. The mechanism may be the explanation of such catastrophic glacier advances as those of Bråsvelbreen in Svalbard and of the Kutiàh Glacier 20 in the Karakoram recently.
Now I want to get more practical. If I look at the diagramme above showing the temperatures in different ice sheets across the globe, I decide the energy from the asteroide is going to hit the center of the ice sheet in Greenland, GISP2 for instance, where the temperature appears to vary between minus 30 and minus 10. I average the profile and say it is minus 25 degrees Celsius, and I decide the energy is only going to be used to melt ice, not to hit the ground, make a crater which it no doubt is going to do, or to boil some of the water, so it evaporates and heats up the atmosphere, instead of melting more ice, or blow some of the ice far far away which is also going to happen, only in this experiment it does not happen. We only want to melt ice. To do that we first have to heat it from -25 Celsius to a melting point of 0 Celsius. At 0 degrees Celsius, ice will melt, but we have to add energy to break the crystal structure and transform the water in solid state to water in a fluid state.
From Ice - Thermal Properties
1575378487148.png
Looking at the above table I will average the specific heat values between the ice which is -25 C and then the temperature I want to reach which is zero degrees Celsius. A reasonable approximation, that is easy to use is 2.0 kJ/kg K This means I need to add 2.0 kJ to heat one kg or liter of water by one degree. For more on specific heat capacity see this Wiki.

On Latent Heat of Melting for some common Materials one finds that
The latent heat of fusion of a substance is the amount of heat required to convert a unit mass of the solid into liquid without change in temperature
They have a table and claim the transition from ice to water at 0 degrees Celsius or 273 degrees Kelvin requires 334 kJ/kg

Now I'm ready to first heat up 1 kg of ice from minus 25 C to 1 kg of ice at zero degrees and then to make sure I continue to add so much heat that it actually melts. Since 1 Celsius is the same as 1 Kelvin I, we can say we need to raise the temperature of the ice 25 K

For that I need 25 K×2.0 kJ/kgK that is 50 kJ/kg Now I have one kg of ice at zero degrees, and I need to add heat to get one kg of water at zero degrees. That is simple, as the table gave us that we need to add 334 kJ/kg this means that for one kg of ice at minus 25 C we need 50 kJ/kg plus 334 kJ/kg =384 kJ/kg.

What we now need to do is to divide the total energy of the asteroid 3 × 10^21 J by 384 kJ/kg This will give us the number of kg ice we can melt.
1 kJ means 1 kilojoule or a 1000 joule. 384 kJ/kg is the same as 384 × 10^3 J/kg or 3.84 × 10^5 J/kg We enter the numbers in a calculator and find that 3 × 10^21 J / 3.84 × 10^5 J/kg = 3E21/3.84E5= 7,812,500,000,000,000‬ kg =7.8125E15 We know the names kilo, Mega, Giga, Tera, Peta and this is 7.8 Peta kg of ice that can be melted. How much is that. One cubic meter has a thousand kg so our number is 7,812,500,000,000 m^3. One cubic kilometer (km3) has 1,000,000,000 cubic meters, so we have 7812,5 km3, but this is water not ice. To find out the volume of ice we have melted with our astronomical amount of energy we need to convert the volume of water into volume of ice. The density of ice -25 degrees Celsius is according to the table from the engineering toolbox 919.6 kg/m^3 We take the number 7,812,500,000,000,000‬ kg and divide by 919.6 kg/m^3 to get 8,495,541,539,799,9 m3 and with one cubic kilometer still being 1,000,000,000 m^3 the above will give about 8495 km^3. To find the area we divided this volume by the thickness of the ice which was 3 km and this gives us 2832 km^2. If we assume this is a square plot then the side of this area is the square root of 2832 km^2 which is 53.2 km. If we rather like to think of the area as round, we use the formular for a the area of a circle as pi×r^2. If we divide 2832 km^2 by pi we get 901.45 km^2 and taking the square root of that will give a radius of around 30 km.

The whole ice sheet on Greenland has a volume of Greenland ice sheet - Wikipedia 2,850,000 cubic kilometres. Comparing our figure of a possible melt of 8495 km^3 of ice with 2,850,000 km^3 of ice this would give us 8,495/2,850,000 which is 0.00298 or around 3 ‰. The same Wiki says that if the whole ice sheet on Greenland melted, then the sea would rise 7.2 meters. Because the coast line often is flat on the sides, the first cubic kilometers of water would make more difference than the last, but if we forgive ourselves for the possible error then 3 ‰ of 7.2 meters is 3 ‰ of 7200 millimeter (mm) which is 3 × 7.2 mm which is 21.6 mm which is less than an inch or about 2 cm. One problem with this water is that it would only be at zero degrees. It would be colder than most of the ocean water. It would also be lighter as it would it fresh water. This means it would be more on the surface in the beginning, and it may take some time to heat up. As a result there is no guarantee such an event would lead to a warmer weather, rather on the contrary.
 

thorbiorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
When I began looking into the politics of climate change I must have found a paper on Academia.edu, at least the advertisement is now targeting me with papers the field of what is called Vegan studies. Here are a few snips from the emails:

Dear ----

You read the paper "Extinction Rebellion, 'THIS IS NOT A DRILL' An Extinction Rebellion Handbook...". A related Ethical veganism paper was uploaded to Academia.
With the same intro followed by:


A related Peter Kropotkin paper was uploaded to Academia.
Challenging Systems of Domination From Below
Richard J White
A. Nocella and J. Sorenson (ed) Critical Animal Studies Reader: An Introduction to an Intersectional Social Justice Approach to Animal Liberation, Peter Lang Publishing Group: New York.
186 Views
With the same intro followed by:

A related Philip K Dick paper was uploaded to Academia.
With the same intro followed by:

A related Veganism paper was uploaded to Academia.
With the same intro followed by:

A related Veganism paper was uploaded to Academia.
With the same intro followed by:

A related Ethical veganism paper was uploaded to Academia.
There are many more similar articles, if the above was not enough.
 

flashgordonv

Jedi Council Member
FOTCM Member
Just saw this on the net today. In an interview with the ABC in Austrlaia, Ole Waever, prominent international relations professor said among other things:
"In an interview with ABC News in Australia, Professor Wæver cautions that what he sees as “climate inaction” might draw the U.N. into considering other means to ensure its goals are met, even if that leads to global armed conflict.

Professor Wæver says more resistance to change could potentially threaten democracy although the U.N. would counter that the end justified the means in much the same way countries like Greece had their debt crisis solutions forced on them by European Union bureaucrats in Brussels and Strasbourg.

“The United Nations Security Council could, in principle, tomorrow decide that climate change is a threat to international peace and security,” he says."

Seems to me that they are testing the water to see what sort of resistance could be expected if they start upping the ante. Previously this sort of statement would have raised a huge furore. Today, not so much, because .... the planet.
 

Hello H2O

Dagobah Resident
FOTCM Member
Seems to me that they are testing the water to see what sort of resistance could be expected if they start upping the ante. Previously this sort of statement would have raised a huge furore. Today, not so much, because .... the planet.
Kind of reminds me of the lawyer questioning the defendant. "So why did you club your husband to death in his sleep?" "Because he wouldn't take the arsenic."

But can you imagine a scenario where these soldiers would put their life on the line, to attack their own people, especially for some sort of murky ideology like this? I can't see it. I would give it near zero chance of happening. JMHO.
 
Top Bottom