Nut Nut's Attempt At A Book About Politics & Society
Dear Forum Members,
Over in the poker threads, they have members who blog about their poker experience. I've been wanting
How do you feel about Chapter 1 and the Star Trek analogy ?
Does it help illustrate the situation for you ?
Pretty sure this is not the 1st time I hear this analogy, or a mix of it.
spaceship earth is pretty common.
Chapter 5: Milankovitch Cycles & Feedback Loops Between Greenhouse Gases & Temperature
In this chapter, I'll explain WHY the recent version of Earth has gone back and forth between ice ages and interglacials.
Sunlight which reaches the Earth's surface is either absorbed or reflected. The amount absorbed is related to the color of the surface where it comes into contact. A dark surface like water absorbs more solar radiation than a white surface such as ice.
Absorbed solar radiation is transformed into a different type of radiation and become infrared radiation which we feel as heat. The infrared radiation is then radiated back out toward outer space.
The ONLY thing which prevents infrared radiation from escaping to outer space is greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane. The more of these gases which are in the atmosphere, the warmer the planet gets.
So let's begin at a place which is the coldest part of an ice age when the Earth is in the part of an orbital cycle which receives the least amount of sunlight. The temperature is 5C colder than during an interglacial and the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is ~ 180 ppm.
At this point, the Earth's begins to pivot in a manner where more sunlight is reaching the surface.
More sunlight, means more heat is being created. That additional heat increases the transfer of carbon from land and ocean reservoirs into the atmosphere.
Some examples of this transfer.
1) The Earth's oceans absorb CO2 via dissolution. The solubility of a gas in water declines as the temperature of the water decreases. Warm the ocean and it holds less CO2.
2) Frozen ground such as permafrost contains CO2 and methane. As it defrosts, it releases them to the atmosphere.
3) Warmer air holds more water. So the warmer air sucks water from the ground and plants leading to drought and more kindling for wildfire. Trees burn and their CO2 is transferred to the atmopshere.
4) Warmer air means better breeding conditions for insects like bark beetles who feed on weaker trees. Further killing off trees and making them vulnerable to fire. Some microorganisms have anaerobic metabolism which releases CO2 or methane as a byproduct.
5) The Earth gets darker as a result of melting ice and snow. And more solar radiation is absorbed.
All of these examples lead to more GHG's in the atmosphere which is like a thickening blanket keeping more heat in. It's a positively reinforcing feedback loop which is initiated by the earth's orbit.
Eventually we come to the warmest part of an interglacial, the temperature is 5C warmer and the atmospheric CO2 has increased from 180 to 280 ppm.
Then the Earth's orbit starts to pivot in the direction of receiving less sunlight and the entire cycle goes in reverse. Like a seesaw.
Pretty sure this is not the 1st time I hear this analogy, or a mix of it.
spaceship earth is pretty common.
The point of the Spaceship Earth analogy in Chapter One is the lack of a captain to monitor the cabin air quality and the implied consequence of having no captain.
How does that part feel to you when you read it ?
The point of the Spaceship Earth analogy in Chapter One is the lack of a captain to monitor the cabin air quality and the implied consequence of having no captain.
How does that part feel to you when you read it ?
It feels like your trying to hard.
I thought the scientific community is the one monitoring this.
I.e this all feels like an aggregate of random thoughts and I don't like it.
Chapter 6: An Alternative Scale For Measuring Greenhous Gases
When we use figures like CO2 at 180 ppm (ice age) or 280 ppm (interglacial norm) or 430 ppm (current) , they are difficult for laypersons to relate to. The concentrations are nominally very small and people tend to dismiss them as being inconsequential. But there are certain substances which are highly impactful at small concentrations. The concentration of CO2 in the atmopshere is roughly equivalent to the concentration of caffeine in a cup of regular coffee.
To make things more accessible to the layperson, I propose a new measuring system which calculates GHG concentrations in terms of Mt Everest equivalents.
Some basic facts .....
a) Each part per million of CO2 in the atmosphere weighs 7.82 billion tons.
b) Mt Everest weighs an estimated 175 billion tons
c) A methane molecule is ~ 120x stronger of a greenhouse gas than a CO2 molecule, but they don't last as long as CO2 molecule.
So let's calculate the Mt Everest equivalents (MtE) at 3 different points in time. At the ice age, normal interglacial and today.
Ice age = ((180 + 0.6 * 120) * 7.82) / 175 = 11.3 MtE
Normal interglacial = ((280 + 0.6 *120) * 7.82) / 175 = 15.7 MtE
Current = ((430 + 1.9 *120) * 7.82) / 175 = 29.4 MtE
For simplicity sake, I am only including the two GHG's methane and CO2 because they represent about 90% of the greenhouse effect. There are others.
So let's take a step back and ask ourselves ..... if 11.3 Mt Everest equivalents yields an ice age and 15.7 gives rise to an interglacial, what does 29.4 Mt Everests yield ?
And by the way .... we are adding ~0.2 MtE per year.
The distance between an ice age and a normal interglacial is only 4.4 MtE. We've added and additional 13.7 MtE !!!
Chapter 6: An Alternative Scale For Measuring Greenhous Gases
When we use figures like CO2 at 180 ppm (ice age) or 280 ppm (interglacial norm) or 430 ppm (current) , they are difficult for laypersons to relate to. The concentrations are nominally very small and people tend to dismiss them as being inconsequential. But there are certain substances which are highly impactful at small concentrations. The concentration of CO2 in the atmopshere is roughly equivalent to the concentration of caffeine in a cup of regular coffee.
To make things more accessible to the layperson, I propose a new measuring system which calculates GHG concentrations in terms of Mt Everest equivalents.
Some basic facts .....
a) Each part per million of CO2 in the atmosphere weighs 7.82 billion tons.
b) Mt Everest weighs an estimated 175 billion tons
c) A methane molecule is ~ 120x stronger of a greenhouse gas than a CO2 molecule, but they don't last as long as CO2 molecule.
So let's calculate the Mt Everest equivalents (MtE) at 3 different points in time. At the ice age, normal interglacial and today.
Ice age = ((180 + 0.6 * 120) * 7.82) / 175 = 11.3 MtE
Normal interglacial = ((280 + 0.6 *120) * 7.82) / 175 = 15.7 MtE
Current = ((430 + 1.9 *120) * 7.82) / 175 = 29.4 MtE
For simplicity sake, I am only including the two GHG's methane and CO2 because they represent about 90% of the greenhouse effect. There are others.
So let's take a step back and ask ourselves ..... if 11.3 Mt Everest equivalents yields an ice age and 15.7 gives rise to an interglacial, what does 29.4 Mt Everests yield ?
And by the way .... we are adding ~0.2 MtE per year.
The distance between an ice age and a normal interglacial is only 4.4 MtE. We've added and additional 13.7 MtE !!!
Here's a climate scientist from NASA.
The scientific community IS monitoring this.
They are DISTRAUGHT.
They have no authority to do anything about it.
Edit: How do you feel that no one on Earth has the authority to do anything about it ?
elected politicians (or dictators in some places) have a lot of power to do something about "it". Most of them do little (for me, they already do too much in europe and we are suffering horribly from it with absolutely nothing in return).
Chapter 7: The Delay Period In Earth's Reaction To Elevated GHG Levels
Ok, after reading the previous chapter, you might be wondering why Earth systems have not yet gone off the rails in response to the near doubling of greenhouse gas levels.
The answer might be best told through an analogy.
Imagine you need to boil water to cook something. Imagine you put two identical pots on the stove and turn up the heat under them to the exact same temperature. The only difference is that one pot holds half a gallon of water and the other holds two gallons.
Which pot boils first ?
The answer is that the pot with less water boils first. The time it takes to reach equilibrium to the heat setting is a function of the volume of water which must be heated.
In either case, there is a delay in the time the heat setting is set and the contents reaching equilibrium.
The Earth is similar to a gigantic pot of water. There are ~ 1.3 Billion km3 of water in the oceans. The amount of time it takes to reach full equilibrium to the new heat setting is over a century.
All other things being equal, if we never added another drop of GHG's to the atmosphere, we have kicked off a century of feedback loops and further warming.
Scientists have a term for the amount of temperature increase which is to be expected from a doubling of GHG levels. The call it Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS). The IPCC suggests an ECS of about 3C while Hansen and company's recent estimate is 4.5C.
The bottom line is that we have a lot of warming in the pipeline.
Why is the Earth's orbital relationship with the Sun not constant ?1) Gravitational forces of other planets. When the Earth is between the Sun and Jupiter, the gravitational force of Jupiter pulls the Earth further away from the Sun. When Venus is between the Sun and the Earth, the gravitational force of Venus pulls the Earth closer to the Sun. The result is an elliptical orbit
That's not how orbital dynamics works. Elliptical orbits are generic solutions to Kepler's laws and of course Newton's laws of gravitation and motion. Even if the Earth and sun were the only objects in the universe, you would expect the distance between the Earth and Sun to not be constant. A circular orbit is theoretically possible, in that a circle is just a special type of ellipse; but it would require high degrees of fine tuning in the original dust cloud that formed the hypothetical Sun/Earth universe.
elected politicians (or dictators in some places) have a lot of power to do something about "it".
That's just nonsense.
Any nation of people which just chose to voluntarily stand down from ghg emissions would make themselves vulnerable to domination by an aggressor nation.
We can only safely back off emissions if we all do it in unison. No one has the power to implement that.
That's just nonsense.
Any nation of people which just chose to voluntarily stand down from ghg emissions would make themselves vulnerable to domination by an aggressor nation.
We can only safely back off emissions if we all do it in unison. No one has the power to implement that.
wait why? so you admit that reducing emissions make you far weaker and a loser?
The Paris Climate Accord was a complete farce.
No jurisdiction, No commitments.
Look at what Europeans did to native Americans when they arrived with Columbus 500 years ago.
They slaughtered them by the millions.
It would be stupid to unilaterally disarm.
We will do this globally and in unison or not at all.
Not reducing emissions is mutually assured destruction. No one escapes this Lucifer. Not you. Not me.
That's not how orbital dynamics works. Elliptical orbits are generic solutions to Kepler's laws and of course Newton's laws of gravitation and motion. Even if the Earth and sun were the only objects in the universe, you would expect the distance between the Earth and Sun to not be constant. A circular orbit is theoretically possible, in that a circle is just a special type o
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovit...
The Earth's rotation around its axis, and revolution around the Sun, evolve over time due to gravitational interactions with other bodies in the Solar System. The variations are complex, but a few cycles are dominant.
That has nothing to do with the issue. Nobody is denying that other plants effect the Earth's orbit. You said
When the Earth is between the Sun and Jupiter, the gravitational force of Jupiter pulls the Earth further away from the Sun. When Venus is between the Sun and the Earth, the gravitational force of Venus pulls the Earth closer to the Sun. The result is an elliptical orbit.
A lay person reading what you wrote would conclude that the Earth's orbit would be circular if other planets did not exist.
There is a relationship between the economic system and the environment. I don't have an ideological problem with capitalism. I have a problem with the lack of environmental regulation which is currently coupled with capitalism. There is certainly room for entrepreneurial energy in the future which I imagine. I would reward problem solvers. I think someone like Jeff Bezos and h
Then in good faith, I really think you should spend a little more time looking at China's lakes and rivers, and how they have superseded (through lack of regulations) the US in agricultural runoff and industrial discharge, the extinctions and aquatic life.
Then spend half a day on their air quality.
The Scandinavian countries are lower per capita. But that doesn't factor in that those countries enjoy higher standards of living while under those emission levels. If each person adopted their consumption patters, China's total emissions would skyrocket.
Again, it's taking what works best- mixed economy (nordic) allowing for more efficient living and curbing excessive waste with greater regulations
China is a great country with awesome people but looking to them as the savior for reducing pollutants is ignorant at best, or again, a little deceptive.
Then in good faith, I really think you should spend a little more time looking at China's lakes and rivers, and how they have superseded (through lack of regulations) the US in agricultural runoff and industrial discharge, the extinctions and aquatic life.Then spend half a day on their air quality.The Scandinavian countries are lower per capita. But that doesn't factor in that
Nowhere did I point to China's current model as the savior. If they were, I wouldn't be writing about the road to extinction.
But give them credit where credit is due.
They have elevated the living standards of their people and built a massive economy underneath a communist dictatorship. They have made huge investment in renewable energy. They have elevated themselves from a nation which was bullied by the Japanese in WW2 to a global superpower which can no longer be bullied.
That has nothing to do with the issue. Nobody is denying that other plants effect the Earth's orbit. You said
A lay person reading what you wrote would conclude that the Earth's orbit would be circular if other planets did not exist.
A layperson would be correct in understanding that gravitational interactions with other bodies is the primary reason for a departure from a circular orbit.
A person reading your comment might think that layperson is not one word, but two. Perhaps you should apologize for your lack of command of English, my nitpicky friend ?
Above image showing something going on with Sea Surface Temps in the N Pacific.
