CDZ avoiding climate catastrophe : paying attention to our methane output should be of bigger concern to us, i and quite a few others think

[flacaltenn]

Billy_Bob Not attacking you bro, just trying to keep you "out of traffic" and incoming. If you have a fancy science calculator or Excel -- go plot that forcing function STARTING at 280ppm and ending somwhere near 2240. Just put in the doubling points on the X axis and allow the Y axis to autoscale.

You'll see a whole 'nother picture of what's left in terms of warming potential.

Here's the deal. With blind faith in science and tech, I dont EVER THINK we're gonna be coughing up CO2 and as much CH4 even 100 years from now. If we dont end up in the movie Idiocracy. LOL. And that 2nd doubling is at LEAST 180 years from now IF we dont go nuclear by 2050 (or something other than wind and solar toys).

So the focus should be on the "steady state" response (long term) rather than the short term temp changes. And this whole discussion of the "power of CO2" should be reserved for dismissing the WILDER, more shrill science about imminent DOOM in the short term.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Billy_Bob Not attacking you bro, just trying to keep you "out of traffic" and incoming. If you have a fancy science calculator or Excel -- go plot that forcing function STARTING at 280ppm and ending somwhere near 2240. Just put in the doubling points on the X axis and allow the Y axis to autoscale.

You'll see a whole 'nother picture of what's left in terms of warming potential.

Here's the deal. With blind faith in science and tech, I dont EVER THINK we're gonna be coughing up CO2 and as much CH4 even 100 years from now. If we dont end up in the movie Idiocracy. LOL. And that 2nd doubling is at LEAST 180 years from now IF we dont go nuclear by 2050 (or something other than wind and solar toys).

So the focus should be on the "steady state" response (long term) rather than the short term temp changes. And this whole discussion of the "power of CO2" should be reserved for dismissing the WILDER, more shrill science about imminent DOOM in the short term.

Three doublings... Potential warming is just 3.3 deg C. This assumes that water vapor and cloud formation will not change solar influence. IF the rate of cooling from the dampening increases with the increase of temp, then we should see just 1.7 deg C in temperature rise.

It's not just the log of CO2 but the increase in cooling response from water vapor in our atmosphere. There is a lot more to this calculation than everyone is assuming. At no time will we reach a point of no return in this buffered system.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Dont let that graph get the "Clive Best" of you. Of COURSE if you start from ZERO concentration -- you ARE SATURATED in that 95% number.

But the ZERO NUMBER never existed.. In fact, since the last ICE AGE (and b4 SUVs and coal plants) -- we START from about 280ppm. Because in naive way -- that's the IDEAL conc of CO2 before man started to raise cows and pigs and built factories.

So - We haven't ever REACHED the FIRST DOUBLING in atmos from there. The radiative forcing from IDEAL to NOW hasn't accounted for more than a couple WATTS of power at the surface.

BUT -- 3 or 5 watts of "averaged incident power" increase CAN ACCOUNT for MANY degrees of surface warming. (like 1.5 to 3.0 say).

And when we REACH the first doubling -- it will take TWICE AS MUCH CO2 to get the NEXT 1.5 to 3.0DegC doubling -- BUT IT WILL HAPPEN..

There's no doubt of that. But likely that 2nd doubling is in the latter part of the NEXT century and our ancestors will be too dumb to even see it coming if we dont IMPROVE REAL Science/math/tech/eng education.

Any "climate sensitivity" number is a hope and poke. We do not yet fully understand the complex system that is our atmosphere. The energy being retained is not residing for very long. Why? so many variables to deal with. Solar input, galactic radiation/ionization, water reaction to CO2 sequestration, clouds and micro circulations that no model can yet deal with. Ocean circulations and zonal shifts in air aloft. The list goes on and on.

My biggest problem with people, who do not study the atmosphere, they have no clue how even a very basic circulation is influenced. Given what we have observed, in reactions to what little warming we have had, we are in no danger of any tipping point.

 

[jc456]

Before moving on, not trying overstate the obvious, but while stating "MODELING" so clearly like that, I can't help thinking that should give one some pause. Okay, self, we're just talking about MODELS here, not real, measured results.. MODELS of what exactly?.. Reality?.. Is this necessary?.. Am I really working toward making some useful point?.. Anyways..

I'd be impressed if you had figured out to type that shit out here instead of just copy/pasting the image. And I'm so not going back to enabled sig lines just to read yours, but nice self-promotion. So it's ln(2), eh? Final answer?.. Cool! Have I argued that "logarithmic equation for CO2 watts/m2 forcing function based on concentration" should be otherwise? Uh,.. no.. ??? That similar graphs were hard to find on the web? Uh,.. no.. ???

No, I won't and you know it. The labelling is what's really telling.

Right,.. it's all really complicated.. Try reading this through with no pain medication..

But let's stop and examine how that "additional" caveat you inserted might really apply. In addition to what now? Some climate experts assert the following:

And there's your cue.. Grab the final word. Go ahead and tell everyone, "Like I said, (blaa, dee blaa, dee blaa..)" You know you can't resist parading around like peacock in heat

got that one prediction that's come true?

 

[jc456]

Effects of Temperature and Barometric Pressure on CO2 Sensors - Application Note - BAPI

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) in air is normally measured in Parts Per Million (ppm). At 1,000 ppm CO2, a volume or air containing one million air molecules would contain a mixture of 999,000 air molecules and 1,000 CO2 molecules. The volume of air necessary to contain one million air molecules is...

www.bapihvac.com

 

[Leo123]

I pulled up the OP's link and what is the very first thing I see? The picture of a friggin' COW! Also, did anyone notice the beginning of the title of the article in the link? "Scientists say." I remember when CO2 was the 'insidious culprit.' Now, apparently that argument is no longer valid so what Do "scientists say" now? It's METHANE!!! Yeah, that's it.....Whew! Global warming is SAVED!!!!!

 

[flacaltenn]

Three doublings... Potential warming is just 3.3 deg C.

Yeah. And 3 doublings is not in cards before the eco-frauds give in and BEG for nuclear power. OR fusion. Or a hydrogen energy economy. Or aliens make us feel bad by pointing out how simple it is to make electricity some other way. LOL..

The 3.3 DegC IS kinda low. That's a bare MINIMUM for 3 doublings. If you read and understood that chart of Climate Sensitivity that I posted, Since 2000 or so, the estimates of temp rise per doubling came down drastically. I DO BELIEVE the actual number is between 1.1 and maybe 1.6DegC per doubling, So at the HIGH side of the estimate is 4.8DegC which WOULD have some consequences -- IF we couldn't get off our evils ways by 2300 or so. This is because of the LONG TERM Climate Sensitivities that take into account the "residency" times of emitted CO2 in the atmos. Adds a LONG TAIL to surface heat even if everything electric went Hydrogen fuel next week.

But you have to realize that CO2 is also over-rated as the ONLY human contribution to the warmings. Our cities are expanding out where they can. Urban Heat Island effects wont be as local and I dont think we really have a handle on the thermo of how development TRAPS heat and causes the land to have more heat energy storage.

Run-off from development WARMS the oceans. Decreases the ability of the land to store water and promotes bigger flood threats. Also contributes a lot to Ocean Acidification because the purest most freshest water is much higher in acidity.

We need to tone it down and get BACK to ENVIRONMENTALISM. Global Warming hysteria has EATEN all our other important enviro priorities for too long now.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yeah. And 3 doublings is not in cards before the eco-frauds give in and BEG for nuclear power. OR fusion. Or a hydrogen energy economy. Or aliens make us feel bad by pointing out how simple it is to make electricity some other way. LOL..

The 3.3 DegC IS kinda low. That's a bare MINIMUM for 3 doublings. If you read and understood that chart of Climate Sensitivity that I posted, Since 2000 or so, the estimates of temp rise per doubling came down drastically. I DO BELIEVE the actual number is between 1.1 and maybe 1.6DegC per doubling, So at the HIGH side of the estimate is 4.8DegC which WOULD have some consequences -- IF we couldn't get off our evils ways by 2300 or so. This is because of the LONG TERM Climate Sensitivities that take into account the "residency" times of emitted CO2 in the atmos. Adds a LONG TAIL to surface heat even if everything electric went Hydrogen fuel next week.

But you have to realize that CO2 is also over-rated as the ONLY human contribution to the warmings. Our cities are expanding out where they can. Urban Heat Island effects wont be as local and I dont think we really have a handle on the thermo of how development TRAPS heat and causes the land to have more heat energy storage.

Run-off from development WARMS the oceans. Decreases the ability of the land to store water and promotes bigger flood threats. Also contributes a lot to Ocean Acidification because the purest most freshest water is much higher in acidity.

We need to tone it down and get BACK to ENVIRONMENTALISM. Global Warming hysteria has EATEN all our other important enviro priorities for too long now.

Hydrogen? Where are we getting the extra power to make that?

 

[flacaltenn]

Any "climate sensitivity" number is a hope and poke. We do not yet fully understand the complex system that is our atmosphere. The energy being retained is not residing for very long. Why? so many variables to deal with. Solar input, galactic radiation/ionization, water reaction to CO2 sequestration, clouds and micro circulations that no model can yet deal with. Ocean circulations and zonal shifts in air aloft. The list goes on and on.

My biggest problem with people, who do not study the atmosphere, they have no clue how even a very basic circulation is influenced. Given what we have observed, in reactions to what little warming we have had, we are in no danger of any tipping point.

Yup. The modeling is even now -- not good enough. But here's hope. They guessed SO WRONG at the critical numbers INTO the models and focused MAINLY on Models for too long, rather than going out and spending the money energy on zeroing in on MEASURING those critical variables.

If you've seen the climate scientists getting surveyed by Bray and von Storch that I've posted many times, several of their 100+ questions had to do with opinions on the accuracies of the modeling, and even the core science community did not give modeling any glowing confidence. Last survey I looked at by those authors STILL had a significant distrust of the modeling.


So my hope would be that we get slightly more DOWN than UP revisions in the models when they really are analyzing the complex thermo system of this planet.

 

[flacaltenn]

Hydrogen? Where are we getting the extra power to make that?

From wind and solar silly.. LOL.. That's what an advanced alien who just landed on this planet would tell you. It would say -- "take that shitty wind and solar OFF your Grid and use it DEDICATED STANDALONE to make and STORE POWER"

And we'd go -- like WOW dude that's smart. Then we wouldn't need to drown in the Old Rocks plan for battery "grid scale storage".. AND -- in that case, the POWER for making hydrogen would be "kinda free" wouldn't it?

The wonderful thing about THIS idea, is that wind/solar are IDEAL for making hydrogen because you STORE THE PRODUCT. You're not using it instantaneous.

HELL - I'd open a hydrogen farm in a heartbeat. Break out the hammock and watch the windmills turn out money for me.

If our resident sun/wind worshipper youknowwho can run a STEEL MILL on wind/solar (and I doubt that's the WHOLE story) it's a SNAP to open a hydrogen factory.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

From wind and solar silly.. LOL.. That's what an advanced alien who just landed on this planet would tell you. It would say -- "take that shitty wind and solar OFF your Grid and use it DEDICATED STANDALONE to make and STORE POWER"

And we'd go -- like WOW dude that's smart. Then we wouldn't need to drown in the Old Rocks plan for battery "grid scale storage".. AND -- in that case, the POWER for making hydrogen would be "kinda free" wouldn't it?

The wonderful thing about THIS idea, is that wind/solar are IDEAL for making hydrogen because you STORE THE PRODUCT. You're not using it instantaneous.

HELL - I'd open a hydrogen farm in a heartbeat. Break out the hammock and watch the windmills turn out money for me.

If our resident sun/wind worshipper youknowwho can run a STEEL MILL on wind/solar (and I doubt that's the WHOLE story) it's a SNAP to open a hydrogen factory.

Is your money machine going to involved compressed hydrogen? Liquid hydrogen? Pipelines?

 

[flacaltenn]

Is your money machine going to involved compressed hydrogen? Liquid hydrogen? Pipelines?

Need better designs for storage tanks but yeah. Compressed is relative. You dont have chose liquid or compressed or HIGHLY compressed.

Here's the deal. Wind and solar are SOMEWHAT regional, so some pipelines MIGHT be necessary, But you could make and STORE IT LOCALLY in most of US. For instance, your local nat gas company takes PIPELINE nat gas and stores it OFF SEASON underground LOCALLY. Or uses the closest pipeline to replenish it.

With the generation MORE LOCALLY stored, it cuts much of the transport issues.

With a fuel cell outside your HOME and a local pipeline to the hydrogen storage - YOU CAN BE the electric company rather than burning hydrogen IN the home.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I pulled up the OP's link and what is the very first thing I see? The picture of a friggin' COW! Also, did anyone notice the beginning of the title of the article in the link? "Scientists say." I remember when CO2 was the 'insidious culprit.' Now, apparently that argument is no longer valid so what Do "scientists say" now? It's METHANE!!! Yeah, that's it.....Whew! Global warming is SAVED!!!!!

The goal posts are on wheels now...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Need better designs for storage tanks but yeah. Compressed is relative. You dont have chose liquid or compressed or HIGHLY compressed.

Here's the deal. Wind and solar are SOMEWHAT regional, so some pipelines MIGHT be necessary, But you could make and STORE IT LOCALLY in most of US. For instance, your local nat gas company takes PIPELINE nat gas and stores it OFF SEASON underground LOCALLY. Or uses the closest pipeline to replenish it.

With the generation MORE LOCALLY stored, it cuts much of the transport issues.

With a fuel cell outside your HOME and a local pipeline to the hydrogen storage - YOU CAN BE the electric company rather than burning hydrogen IN the home.

Energy storage is the primary issue. Spot ON! Batteries are not the answer. So, what's the best answer? I agree with hydrogen gas creation. How do we do it safely and then how do we use it safely?

We already have ICE generators that can work safely using hydrogen. The safety issues are with idiots that do not know the dangers of this new fuel. Just like propane tanks, people who are not familiar, can make life ending mistakes. Hydrogen has about 3 times the stored energy that propane has. It's going to be a bigger KA-boom.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Safely is why liquid air will win. Safe saves $.

I know,.. if you can't blow shit up with it you're just not interested!


Wowza!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Energy storage is the primary issue. Spot ON! Batteries are not the answer. So, what's the best answer? I agree with hydrogen gas creation. How do we do it safely and then how do we use it safely?

We already have ICE generators that can work safely using hydrogen. The safety issues are with idiots that do not know the dangers of this new fuel. Just like propane tanks, people who are not familiar, can make life ending mistakes. Hydrogen has about 3 times the stored energy that propane has. It's going to be a bigger KA-boom.

We already have ICE generators that can work safely using hydrogen.

Why would you do that?
Fuels cells are much more efficient.

Hydrogen has about 3 times the stored energy that propane has.

Per what? Cubic meter? Kilogram?

 

[Leo123]

hydrogen fuel cells are very efficient. Elon Musk rejected it because he said it cost too much to extract hydrogen. Elon Musk also owns and has his money in Lithium mines so...........

 

[flacaltenn]

Safely is why liquid air will win. Safe saves $.

I know,.. if you can't blow shit up with it you're just not interested!


Wowza!

Actually bud, massive underground air bladders compress with water as the hydraulic fluid ARE being used on a small scale and work quite well. Got links if you wanna see it.

Don't think they vids of them blowing up tho...

 

[Grumblenuts]

Images galore of fracking explosions. Vids too most likely. No, that's not the tech I was referring to, but you knew that

 

[ding]

Images galore of fracking explosions. Vids too most likely. No, that's not the tech I was referring to, but you knew that

What is it that you believe is flammable in hydraulic fracturing?