Showing posts with label Climate change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Climate change. Show all posts

Friday, September 8, 2023

What's a Hunga-Tonka?

 

Good golly, it's HOT!  Isn't that what everyone's saying?  Must be global warming climate change...

Well, maybe...  Maybe not.  Have you heard about the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha’apai volcano that erupted on January 15th, 2022?  NASA said the underwater eruption — at about 150 meters depth — blasted 'huge amounts' of water vapor into the stratosphere.  Well, that's a bummer! 

Why is that a bummer, you ask?  It turns out that water vapor is a better 'greenhouse gas' than carbon dioxide, that's why.  All that water vapor is like adding a few extra blankets...  Just what we need to make our Summers a little cozier.

So when your climate-alarmist friends start ranting about record hot days and it's all your fault because you aren't doing your part to reduce the globe's carbon footprint, you can remind them that Hunga-Tonka just wiped out all the 'progress' made in the last 15 years.

Puny humans!  You're no match for Gaia!

 

Monday, January 2, 2023

More Anti-war With Each Passing Day

 

I ask myself why we're in such a mess.  The only answer I can imagine is that we have put ourselves here by making bad decisions, and those bad decisions are coming home to roost in the form of a warped economy and the great bugaboo, income inequality.  Those who actually make the decisions have a penchant for making decisions that work to their advantage.  Your advantage?  Please, don't make me laugh.  This is how Congress and the DC upper crust can justify spending trillions 'to keep the government running for a few months while we sort everything out'.  Much of... most of that money benefits the average Joe not one whit.

Meanwhile, Congress is at war with its citizens because those idiot citizens insist upon staying warm in the winter and cool in the summer, and they want to drive their cars to work and play instead of staying home or taking public transportation.  To make us behave as we should, the economy will be throttled (both senses of that word) to deprive us of the wherewithal of modern living.  It seems as if the elites want us living in a 9th century village so that there will be enough jet fuel available for them to visit the Côte d’Azur.

And no one can stop them from pillaging our own assets right from under our very noses.

I ask myself where are the heroes.  We subject ourselves to costly election campaigns every two years, and we try to send heroes to Washington to fight for us, but the heroes we send often turn out to be weak-kneed liars who, within years if not months, prove to be in it for no one but themselves.  The exceptions to this are almost too rare to warrant mention.  It's the old canard about the 99% of villains giving the 1% of heroes a bad name.

When there's a dust-up in some foreign country (where we typically have no national interest) there's always some Congressman who will stand up and berate their fellows for not defending the oppressed peasants of West Wheresoever.  And the result?  We send the Army.  We send the Marines.  And we send them a few trillion dollars to help them make ends meet.

And sometimes we brush up against some country that can actually fight back.  And the heroes we sent on a mission that had no 'payback' other than more power for those who did the sending... those heroes don't come home from the mission.  Ah, well, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.

I ask myself who is profiting from all this.  It isn't me, and I suspect it isn't you, either.  Congressmen, meanwhile, have an alarming tendency to become millionaires or billionaires during their term(s) of office.  How does that happen?  Well, it's a fairly simple process, actually. 

  • get involved in a war
  • send billions or trillions in foreign aid
  • that foreign aid is redeemed (laundered) via domestic arms manufacturers
  • who make lavish campaign contributions to those who voted correctly
  • which money can be kept if left over after a campaign ends

We've just witnessed a new variation on that theme involving family members or relatives — Hunter Biden is merely one such example — who gain employment in countries that are recipients of foreign aid:

  • send foreign aid to country A
  • get relative hired by company B
  • that is financially connected to country A
  • and is paid with (laundered) funds originally marked 'foreign aid'
  • some of which makes its way back to a politician who voted correctly

I ask myself when are we going to learn.  I suspect the answer is 'never'.  'Learning' in this context means grasping that 'spending money' does not equate to 'fixing problems'.  Americans, by and large, do not yet understand that.  They think — I'm using 'think' here in its broadest meaning — that all problems can be solved with sufficient greenbacks.  Decades and centuries of adverse experience has not yet penetrated into their consciousness.  They continuously send off to Washington representatives who believe — we have only their actions to inform us of this — that their job is to spend money as fast as possible.  The soldiers who march off to war in countries they've never heard of to fight for reasons of which they are either unsure or deluded will come home to us, if at all, broken physically or mentally or both.  Yes, some lives were lost, some careers ended, some families upended, but it was a very beneficial tactic, financially speaking (if you're in Congress).

Our televisions constantly bombard us with pleas for The Wounded Warrior Project or something similar, the sub rosa message being that you're a patriotic American only if you feel sorry for those who were maimed in a place they shouldn't have been, fighting a war that benefitted their fellow citizens not at all.

Those who march off to war these days fall into two broad categories: the blindly patriotic, and the weak-minded.  The blindly patriotic go because we must, in their minds, push back against any threat to the country no matter how ephemeral.  The weak-minded just do what they're told.  It's a rare thing these days that anyone goes to war because the nation has been attacked.  In a nuclear age, the major powers are not going to do that to each other.  The risk is simply not worth it.  That's why all conflict for the past 75 years has been 'strong vs weak'.  Put another way, it's 'bully vs nerd'.  On those rare occasions when the nerds score (9-11-2001 springs to mind) the bully goes crazy, lashing out wildly and generally making things worse.

If we're to work our way clear of the colossal mess we're in, we must stop making things worse.  How?  Step number one has to be 'stop spending money'.  We have to find all those places where we're spending money foolishly, and stop that.  (Yes, Pentagon and military suppliers, I'm looking at you.)  Then, we have to find all those places where we're spending money wisely and... probably... stop most of that, too.

We'll need another batch of heroes, I suppose.

 

Thursday, December 1, 2022

Earth's Atmosphere

 

I just watched a YouTube video that touched on the composition of the Earth's atmosphere, and it caught me by surprise.  Our atmosphere is 78+% Nitrogen and a shade under 21% Oxygen.  Together, they account for 99% of the total.  (I thought it was 76-22, which isn't far off, but it's far enough off.)  I used to worry that if the climate alarmists got their way and sucked all the carbon dioxide out of the air, we might reach that magical boundary of 24% Oxygen where, it is said, Earth's forests would spontaneously combust.  Thankfully, there's no danger of that since atmospheric carbon dioxide represents a mere 0.04% of the total.  Phew!  Dodged a bullet there.

But wait...  atmospheric carbon dioxide is just 0.04% of our atmosphere?  And all terrestrial plant life gets by on that measely little sliver?  Of course, there's more carbon dioxide dissolved in the oceans, perhaps quite a lot more, and that doesn't even get near the portion that's locked up as vegetation, including semi-fossilized forms (coal, oil, and natural gas).  I see a problem looming.  Can you?

Ultimately, everything we have in this existence is a gift of the Sun.  Plants rely on sunlight to photosynthesize carbon dioxide to grow and reproduce.  Animals (including human animals) consume those plants (and the animals that feed on them) as food.  If we reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we must perforce reduce the amount of plant life that we and our food animals subsist on.

I do not like where this train of thought is leading.

—==+++==—

Update 3/29/2024: I just watched a video that addresses the climate hoax.  Interestingly, I think the biggest take-away from the video is that CO2 does not drive temperature, it's the other way around: temperature drives CO2.

 

Saturday, November 19, 2022

The Economics of Electric Vehicles

 

EVs are expensive because many of their parts are expensive, particularly batteries.  To make EVs appear affordable, governments subsidize their purchase, the subsidy being paid by everyone in the tax base.  Charging stations are likewise subsidized both as to their construction and installation as well as the actual rate per kilowatt-hour.

In contrast, fossil-fueled vehicles (FVs) are currently relatively expensive to operate because fossil-fuels are heavily taxed, the opposite of a subsidy.  Governments use the revenue from fossil-fuels to maintain the roads, but over time, that revenue will disappear as EVs displace FVs, and it will have to be made up from some other source, likely EVs and electricity.  At some point in the future, we can expect that all vehicles will be EVs, and their fuel, electricity, will have to be taxed at rates similar to that currently for fossil-fuels.  In other words, electricity is going to become very expensive.

Complicating that is the current push for 'renewable energy': wind and solar.  Barring some near-miraculous technological leap, it is clear to everyone who studies the available data that all renewable energy sources combined cannot supply enough energy to support even a 20th-century 1st-world civilization.  Failing to develop nuclear power, our standard of living is going to devolve drastically, perhaps to a standard that George Washington would find tolerable.  21st-century Americans will not like being pushed back 200 years.

So, if renewable energy can't handle even today's demand, where is all this electricity we're currently using coming from?  In large part, it's coming from coal and other similarly dirty fuels.  It may be that EVs are actually more polluting than FVs.

There is also the issue of facility availability.  People who own homes will have the option of having their own personal charging station, but renters, especially apartment dwellers, will probably not.  They will be forced to rely on public charging stations, paying a surcharge for the use of the facility and dealing with either long waiting lines or appointments.  While FVs 'recharge' in 5 minutes, EVs take hours.  This will also play heavily into the economics of 'road trips'.  Drive 6 hours, recharge for 3 hours.  That's a whole day of travel for some people.  A coast-to-coast road trip will take 10 days, 9 overnight stays in hotels along the way.  As of right now, long road trips are too expensive for EV owners, put aside the fact that recharging facilities may not be available where and when needed for such an adventure.

One proposed solution to the problem of "recharge time" is to make batteries easily swappable.  When an EV arrives at a recharge station, its battery is measured for charge, pulled, replaced with a fully-charged battery, and the driver pays the difference between charge levels, possibly with a fixed fee for labor to do the swap.  If the swap can be done reasonably quickly (less than 20 minutes) it gives the travelers time to visit the restroom, grab something to eat/drink, and get back to their car.  For this to be feasible, all cars will have to share a single interface to their battery.  There may be many manufacturers or brands of battery, but they all have to fit into the same space and connect the same way.

Along the way from here to there, we will have to maintain parallel service facilities, one for EVs and another for FVs.  The chain of gas stations we today take for granted took 120 years to develop, but we need the same thing for our EVs to be ready tomorrow.

Not going to happen.  It's especially not going to happen when the ordinary consumer realizes how much this is all going to cost.  EVs are going to prove to be economically unfeasible.

—==+++==—

Update 6/26/23:  It's starting.

 

Monday, December 5, 2016

The Climate-Change Debate (sic)

 

We are in the Holocene ('entirely new') epoch of the Quaternary period of the Cenozoic ('recent life') era.  The Holocene began about 10,000 years ago when the last ice age ended.  We have been warming since then.  That is, we are currently living in an interglacial period, a warmer period that is sandwiched between two ice ages.  Global warming is thus not a recent development.  It is, in fact, the primary influence that has allowed our civilization to develop.

The current debate about 'global warming' stems from the theory that it is the result of human activity ('antropogenic global warming', AGW), that it constitutes a bad thing, and that it can be 'corrected' by human activity.  None of those positions seems entirely credible, and the science surrounding those claims is often highly speculative and emotion-driven.

James Lovelock, in his book "The Gaia Hypothesis", suggests that the Earth (Gaia) is more than capable of seeing to her own defenses, does so regularly, and will correct imbalances although perhaps not in a way we would approve.  It is the fear that Gaia will correct us out of existence that drives the AGW hysteria.

Organisms either adapt or go extinct when faced with changes to their environments.  What we know from our experience is that our species adapts supremely well, in fact sometimes changing the environment to suit our present adaptation.  We have colonized the planet from pole to pole, almost literally.  We have been, briefly, to the deepest depths of the oceans and we are now venturing into space.  We travel farther and faster than any other terrestrial species.  We are at the top of the food chain, but all of that could change in unpredictable and possibly unpleasant ways, we are told by AGW alarmists, if we do not change our sinful ways.  Prime among our sins:  using fossil fuels that produce 'greenhouse gases' such as carbon dioxide and water vapor. 

Note that water vapor precipitates out of the atmosphere as rain, does so regularly, and has been doing so since the Earth first cooled from its pre-life Late Heavy Bombardment (LHB), 3.8 billion (with a 'b') years ago, forming Earth's oceans, and setting the stage for the development of planetary life.  If water vapor is a problem, it's news to Gaia.

Note further that carbon dioxide is the primary food for all earthly plant life, supplemented by water.  When carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere increase, two things (among others) happen:  plants thrive and the oceans absorb additional carbon dioxide allowing organisms like coral to flourish.  At the same time environmentalists are complaining that corals are declining in the oceans, they are trying to starve them into extinction.

Plants, by the way, shit oxygen, and we are very happy that they do.  The molecules they retain are stored as carbohydrates, some of which are very pretty, while others are quite tasty.  It's hard to interpret these facts negatively, at least for me.

Now, it's true that dealing with eons and dealing with epochs are two entirely different matters, and that we mustn't confuse the two, but physical processes don't change with the passage of time.  Boyle's Law worked long before there was a species that produced Boyle and will work long after the human species goes extinct, if such be our fate.  It's also likely undeniable that eventually this planet will slip back into another ice age — that's why we're said to be in an interglacial period — and we'll really really wish we could provoke a little global warming... or a lot.

In fact, if GW is actually anthropogenic and if we can keep up the good work, perhaps we need never worry about glaciers advancing south and covering New York a mile deep in ice.  Again.

On the other hand, there could be worse things than New York covered by a mile of ice.  'New York not covered in ice' springs to mind.