The Iron Law of power density and the myth of solar and wind energy .....

[Crick]

Well now I understand your level in this discussion. You think I have not studied the IPCC report? Well, there have been a number of the reports and yes, I have studied some of them. It shocked me you dismiss Dr. Moore and actually libelled him. I could indeed have included Spencer as well as many many others. Do you happen to know the CO2 level inside nuclear submarines? I think it is not secret.

That was a long time ago but I'm thinking it was 0.75 - 1.0 percent. Oxygen was allowed to go surprisingly low, like 16-17%. We could smoke when I was in and people used to complain they couldn't keep their zippos going or that their smokes would go out but I doubt the O2 was ever that low.

Patrick Moore is not a climate scientist and he has spent most of his professional career doing PR work for mining concerns. Why do you bring him up in this context?

And I would still like to hear why you dismiss the IPCC and the hundreds of scientists' studies on whom they base their work.

 

[Robert W]

That was a long time ago but I'm thinking it was 0.75 - 1.0 percent. Oxygen was allowed to go surprisingly low, like 16-17%. We could smoke when I was in and people used to complain they couldn't keep their zippos going or that their smokes would go out but I doubt the O2 was ever that low.

Patrick Moore is not a climate scientist and he has spent most of his professional career doing PR work for mining concerns. Why do you bring him up in this context?

And I would still like to hear why you dismiss the IPCC and the hundreds of scientists' studies on whom they base their work.

I sent to you a new video for your evaluation.
Why would mining be in this conversation? Few are climate scientists. So we deal with thousands who still have an opinion, just as you have yours and I have mine.
I notice you use percent in discussing CO2 levels in submarines.

Here is a mighty huge source of contention. It has been mine for well over 25 years. The amount of CO2 in the entire atmosphere, averaged I believe, amounts to virtually nothing at all. We know they tell us it is in parts per million. This means the measurements made are tiny. So tiny they speak of dividing a unit into a million parts and taking but a tiny part of that to claim there is this enormous danger to Earth.
From the early days of this argument, I think when Clinton was president, People made a huge fuss over what amounts to a nothing burger.

I have not checked, but I tend to doubt that 400 ppm of Cyanide would harm humans, much less this beneficial gas. (As it turns out, 3 ppm of cyanide will kill humans so I am wrong to say 400 ppm of cyanide won't kill. Oh well, I wanted to quantify this.)

Here is a report on Cyanide.

ChemNote: Cyanide Poisoning | ChemSee

3 micrograms to ppm - Google Search

Care to comment?

 

[Crick]

I sent to you a new video for your evaluation.

That will not happen till you satisfy your existing obligation to have a look at AR6's The Physical Science Basis.

Why would mining be in this conversation?

Because you brought up Patrick Moore.

Few are climate scientists.

The authors of the IPCC assessment reports are replete with them.

So we deal with thousands who still have an opinion, just as you have yours and I have mine.

You and I are not scientists of any sort.

I notice you use percent in discussing CO2 levels in submarines.

Okay, 7500 - 10000 ppm. Happier?

Here is a mighty huge source of contention. It has been mine for well over 25 years. The amount of CO2 in the entire atmosphere, averaged I believe, amounts to virtually nothing at all.

The amount added to the atmosphere has been enough to raise Earth's temperature by 1.2 degrees Centigrade since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. To some people, that looks like nothing. So I think it's just about right.

We know they tell us it is in parts per million. This means the measurements made are tiny. So tiny they speak of dividing a unit into a million parts and taking but a tiny part of that to claim there is this enormous danger to Earth.
From the early days of this argument, I think when Clinton was president, People made a huge fuss over what amounts to a nothing burger.

Would you be more concerned if it were dioxin? Or plutonium? Cone shell poison? Why? Because you know that those compounds are capable of doing dramatic things at very small doses - can KILL you at fractions of a single part per BILLION. If that is possible, why do you think it impossible for CO2 to do what it does? A fairly simple experiment shows that 100% of the infrared in the bands absorbed by CO2 vanishes in a distance of about 30 feet through normal air. Thirty feet up in the air, ALL the thermal energy that the warmed Earth has radiated in those bands has been absorbed by those 420 ppm of CO2. If there is enough to do that, there is enough to warm the Earth, just as the scientists tell us. Look, you've looked at some real scientific studies (I assume). You know how complex and detailed are their analyses. Do you actually think they don't realize the size of the amounts they're talking about? People are constantly accusing experienced, published, actively researching PhD scientists of making the sort of mistakes you might find in middle school. Well, get your head around this: they do not make mistakes like that.

I have not checked, but I tend to doubt that 400 ppm of Cyanide would harm humans, much less this beneficial gas.

Let's check
Clinical signs of acute cyanide poisoning include dyspnea, arrhythmias, bradycardia, hypotension, convulsions, coma, apnea and death [3, 9]. It is estimated that the median lethal dose (LD50) of HCN in humans is 1.0 mg/kg IV, 100 mg/kg via dermal exposure, and 1.52 mg/kg via the oral route.

1 mg/kg is 1 ppm


In terms of plutonium toxicity, the lethal dose-50 (LD50) of plutonium-239 (citrate form) determined for rats is 1.6 mg/kg. Humans are about 6 times more sensitive to plutonium than rats, so a person with an average body weight has about a 50 percent chance of dying if she or he ingests only 20 mg of plutonium-239.

LD50 of plutonium for humans is 0.267 ppm


Dioxin is one of the most toxic low-molecular-weight compounds (Figure 26.1). Its oral LD50 for guinea pigs is 2–20 μg/kg; for monkeys, it is 2 μg/kg; for rats, it is 18–60 μg/kg; and for humans (subcutaneous administration), it is about 107 μg/kg (Bajgar, 2006; Patocka and Fusek, 2004).

107 ug/kg is 0.00107 ppm

That lethal dose for dioxin is almost 1/400,000th the current concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere.

(As it turns out, 3 ppm of cyanide will kill humans so I am wrong to say 400 ppm of cyanide won't kill. Oh well, I wanted to quantify this.)

I wish I'd looked ahead at this sentence before looking up all the stuff above. But it reinforces the point.

Care to comment?

Yes and I did.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The amount added to the atmosphere has been enough to raise Earth's temperature by 1.2 degrees Centigrade since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

270 years, 1.2 degrees.
Wow!
How much of that was the end of the Little Ice Age?

 

[Robert W]

That will not happen till you satisfy your existing obligation to have a look at AR6's The Physical Science Basis.

Because you brought up Patrick Moore.

The authors of the IPCC assessment reports are replete with them.

You and I are not scientists of any sort.

Okay, 7500 - 10000 ppm. Happier?

The amount added to the atmosphere has been enough to raise Earth's temperature by 1.2 degrees Centigrade since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. To some people, that looks like nothing. So I think it's just about right.

Would you be more concerned if it were dioxin? Or plutonium? Cone shell poison? Why? Because you know that those compounds are capable of doing dramatic things at very small doses - can KILL you at fractions of a single part per BILLION. If that is possible, why do you think it impossible for CO2 to do what it does? A fairly simple experiment shows that 100% of the infrared in the bands absorbed by CO2 vanishes in a distance of about 30 feet through normal air. Thirty feet up in the air, ALL the thermal energy that the warmed Earth has radiated in those bands has been absorbed by those 420 ppm of CO2. If there is enough to do that, there is enough to warm the Earth, just as the scientists tell us. Look, you've looked at some real scientific studies (I assume). You know how complex and detailed are their analyses. Do you actually think they don't realize the size of the amounts they're talking about? People are constantly accusing experienced, published, actively researching PhD scientists of making the sort of mistakes you might find in middle school. Well, get your head around this: they do not make mistakes like that.

Let's check
Clinical signs of acute cyanide poisoning include dyspnea, arrhythmias, bradycardia, hypotension, convulsions, coma, apnea and death [3, 9]. It is estimated that the median lethal dose (LD50) of HCN in humans is 1.0 mg/kg IV, 100 mg/kg via dermal exposure, and 1.52 mg/kg via the oral route.

1 mg/kg is 1 ppm


In terms of plutonium toxicity, the lethal dose-50 (LD50) of plutonium-239 (citrate form) determined for rats is 1.6 mg/kg. Humans are about 6 times more sensitive to plutonium than rats, so a person with an average body weight has about a 50 percent chance of dying if she or he ingests only 20 mg of plutonium-239.

LD50 of plutonium for humans is 0.267 ppm


Dioxin is one of the most toxic low-molecular-weight compounds (Figure 26.1). Its oral LD50 for guinea pigs is 2–20 μg/kg; for monkeys, it is 2 μg/kg; for rats, it is 18–60 μg/kg; and for humans (subcutaneous administration), it is about 107 μg/kg (Bajgar, 2006; Patocka and Fusek, 2004).

107 ug/kg is 0.00107 ppm

That lethal dose for dioxin is almost 1/400,000th the current concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere.



I wish I'd looked ahead at this sentence before looking up all the stuff above. But it reinforces the point.


Yes and I did.

It might take me a full week to evaluate the IPCC report. I do deep dives is why.
Start with the Head who is the Editor. Hoesung Lee
Turns out he is From Korea and is an economist. Swell, the top guy is an economist yet you have the nerve to blast Patrick Moore for your imaginary claim he was in mining. Moore has been in Forestry but not mining. He also has led actual fights over saving Whales and so forth so he is very interested in saving the planet.

Also in the head group writing the report, is Katherine Calvin As an earth scientist at the Joint Global Change Research Institute (JGCRI), she has researched human use of global resources.

Look, this much took me a bit of time which is interrupting things I believe are more valuable. I will keep this going per your request as I analyze each of the IPCC as you do to my sources.

 

[Crick]

It might take me a full week to evaluate the IPCC report. I do deep dives is why.
Start with the Head who is the Editor. Hoesung Lee
Turns out he is From Korea and is an economist. Swell, the top guy is an economist yet you have the nerve to blast Patrick Moore for your imaginary claim he was in mining. Moore has been in Forestry but not mining. He also has led actual fights over saving Whales and so forth so he is very interested in saving the planet.

Also in the head group writing the report, is Katherine Calvin As an earth scientist at the Joint Global Change Research Institute (JGCRI), she has researched human use of global resources.

Look, this much took me a bit of time which is interrupting things I believe are more valuable. I will keep this going per your request as I analyze each of the IPCC as you do to my sources.

The most abbreviated document is the Summary for Policy Makers, a portion of the Working Group I report. You can find it at https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf

You are correct, I goofed and have gotten mining and logging swapped wrt Mr Moore. Other than that, I stand by what I said. He is not a climate scientist. He is a PR man for unpopular industries.

 

[Robert W]

The most abbreviated document is the Summary for Policy Makers, a portion of the Working Group I report. You can find it at https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_SPM.pdf

You are correct, I goofed and have gotten mining and logging swapped wrt Mr Moore. Other than that, I stand by what I said. He is not a climate scientist. He is a PR man for unpopular industries.

I announce to you, in the interest of total fairness, to both of us, my immediate plan is to follow your pattern of being slow to watch videos and to constantly remark that your sources are politicians, economists, social do gooders and perhaps worse than that.
The gist of what your politicians say will be hammered hard for them being politicians. Patrick Moore cured himself of what I call the bullcrap by Democrats. When he found his organization turned hard left he left the group. Imagine had Stalin took it over. He hated leaving it but it really became a terrible organization.

When talking of Fossil Fuels, the reason they are so popular is simple. Energy density. Also they are widely available. While it might be true that a substite for such fuels won't be worth making, we know that in WW2 to survive the Germans made fuels themselves. So it is still possible as you see with Alcohol for man to create enough fuel to keep our present ICE vehicles. So why keep them? Energy density. I said it again. Simply put, they carry a plentiful supply of safe to use fuel so you can drive long distances and when adding to the fuel supply it is already known by consumers and takes little time to refuel. A well written book called the Deep Hot Biosphere should inspire thinking that so called fossil fuels are ending in our more immediate future. The book explains a different way it forms than we hear in the media or by our politicians. A good bit of our troubles these days are pure crap from politicians.

 

[Crick]

I announce to you, in the interest of total fairness, to both of us, my immediate plan is to follow your pattern of being slow to watch videos

I was not slow to watch your first video and you presented your second video before satisfying the deal you made for me watching the first.

and to constantly remark that your sources are politicians, economists, social do gooders and perhaps worse than that.

Remark all you want. That's kind of the purpose of the whole exercise.

The gist of what your politicians say will be hammered hard for them being politicians.

If you can find the names of any politicians among the authors or reviewers of The Physical Science Basis, I will be very surprised.

Patrick Moore cured himself of what I call the bullcrap by Democrats.

Patrick Moore turned out not to be a good match with anyone else who was interested in saving the whales.

When he found his organization turned hard left he left the group. Imagine had Stalin took it over. He hated leaving it but it really became a terrible organization.

I don't think Stalin was terribly concerned about the fate of the whales. Greenpeace was never a terrible organization.

When talking of Fossil Fuels, the reason they are so popular is simple. Energy density. Also they are widely available.

They are not as available as the wind and the sun.

While it might be true that a substite for such fuels won't be worth making, we know that in WW2 to survive the Germans made fuels themselves.

They made synthetic fuels from coal.

So it is still possible as you see with Alcohol for man to create enough fuel to keep our present ICE vehicles.

The Germans did not make fuel from alcohol. And both coal and alcohol produce CO2 when you burn them. The better idea is to convert engines to burn hydrogen.

So why keep them? Energy density. I said it again.

Why get rid of them? GHGs. I said it again.

Simply put, they carry a plentiful supply of safe to use fuel so you can drive long distances and when adding to the fuel supply it is already known by consumers and takes little time to refuel.

A solid state battery with 745 miles of range and ten minute recharge time beats any of those in every way. A hydrogen powered ICE or fuel cell could be refueled in seconds.

A well written book called the Deep Hot Biosphere should inspire thinking that so called fossil fuels are ending in our more immediate future.

How deep an oil well do you think can be drilled?

The book explains a different way it forms than we hear in the media or by our politicians.

There was a second article in 2017 marking the 25th anniversary of Gold's first article. Here's the abstract. Emphasis mine.

Abstract​

Twenty-five years ago this month, Thomas Gold published a seminal manuscript suggesting the presence of a “deep, hot biosphere” in the Earth’s crust. Since this publication, a considerable amount of attention has been given to the study of deep biospheres, their role in geochemical cycles, and their potential to inform on the origin of life and its potential outside of Earth. Overwhelming evidence now supports the presence of a deep biosphere ubiquitously distributed on Earth in both terrestrial and marine settings. Furthermore, it has become apparent that much of this life is dependent on lithogenically sourced high-energy compounds to sustain productivity. A vast diversity of uncultivated microorganisms has been detected in subsurface environments, and we show that H2, CH4, and CO feature prominently in many of their predicted metabolisms. Despite 25 years of intense study, key questions remain on life in the deep subsurface, including whether it is endemic and the extent of its involvement in the anaerobic formation and degradation of hydrocarbons. Emergent data from cultivation and next-generation sequencing approaches continue to provide promising new hints to answer these questions. As Gold suggested, and as has become increasingly evident, to better understand the subsurface is critical to further understanding the Earth, life, the evolution of life, and the potential for life elsewhere. To this end, we suggest the need to develop a robust network of interdisciplinary scientists and accessible field sites for long-term monitoring of the Earth’s subsurface in the form of a deep subsurface microbiome initiative.

But, of course, this work was done by mainstream scientists so it can't be trusted. Look how often they're wrong. Mainstream scientists thought the Earth was flat. And they're undoubtedly getting paid off by the anti-petroleum left wing democrats. Right?

A good bit of our troubles these days are pure crap from politicians.

AGW is a good bit of trouble which did not come from politicians.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

AGW is a good bit of trouble which did not come from politicians.

Where did their stupid solutions come from?

 

[Robert W]

That will not happen till you satisfy your existing obligation to have a look at AR6's The Physical Science Basis.

Again, politicians wrote it. Dr. Linzen was very angry with IPCC for changing his opinions to match the politicians.

Patrick Moore turned out not to be a good match with anyone else who was interested in saving the whales.

Patrick Moore can take credit for the save the whales laws now on the books. It has been a boon to the whale population.

Greenpeace was never a terrible organization.

It was good in the beginning.

The Germans did not make fuel from alcohol. And both coal and alcohol produce CO2 when you burn them. The better idea is to convert engines to burn hydrogen.

And that reply has nothing to do with my remarks. I did not say what the Germans used to create liquid fuels. I have long been in favor of Hydrogen fuels. Going back to my college days in 1957 to specify when it was.

A solid state battery with 745 miles of range and ten minute recharge time beats any of those in every way. A hydrogen powered ICE or fuel cell could be refueled in seconds.

I plan to study such a battery. I again agree that Hydrogen is the perfect fuel.

There was a second article in 2017 marking the 25th anniversary of Gold's first article. Here's the abstract. Emphasis mine.

Abstract​

Twenty-five years ago this month, Thomas Gold published a seminal manuscript suggesting the presence of a “deep, hot biosphere” in the Earth’s crust. Since this publication, a considerable amount of attention has been given to the study of deep biospheres, their role in geochemical cycles, and their potential to inform on the origin of life and its potential outside of Earth. Overwhelming evidence now supports the presence of a deep biosphere ubiquitously distributed on Earth in both terrestrial and marine settings. Furthermore, it has become apparent that much of this life is dependent on lithogenically sourced high-energy compounds to sustain productivity. A vast diversity of uncultivated microorganisms has been detected in subsurface environments, and we show that H2, CH4, and CO feature prominently in many of their predicted metabolisms. Despite 25 years of intense study, key questions remain on life in the deep subsurface, including whether it is endemic and the extent of its involvement in the anaerobic formation and degradation of hydrocarbons. Emergent data from cultivation and next-generation sequencing approaches continue to provide promising new hints to answer these questions. As Gold suggested, and as has become increasingly evident, to better understand the subsurface is critical to further understanding the Earth, life, the evolution of life, and the potential for life elsewhere. To this end, we suggest the need to develop a robust network of interdisciplinary scientists and accessible field sites for long-term monitoring of the Earth’s subsurface in the form of a deep subsurface microbiome initiative.

I am pleased you really are familiar with Gold's work.

AGW is a good bit of trouble which did not come from politicians.

Oh they don't produce their share of AGW?

 

[Robert W]

Crick: Just how certain are you that you can trust the politicians?

Scientist are not in charge of politics. So just why do you trust politicians?

 

[Crick]

Again, politicians wrote it. Dr. Linzen was very angry with IPCC for changing his opinions to match the politicians.

Patrick Moore can take credit for the save the whales laws now on the books. It has been a boon to the whale population.

It was good in the beginning.

And that reply has nothing to do with my remarks. I did not say what the Germans used to create liquid fuels. I have long been in favor of Hydrogen fuels. Going back to my college days in 1957 to specify when it was.

I plan to study such a battery. I again agree that Hydrogen is the perfect fuel.

I am pleased you really are familiar with Gold's work.

Oh they don't produce their share of AGW?

Well considering the legislative support they've given the fossil fuel companies in return for their generous donations, some politicians are responsible for far more than their fair share.

 

[Crick]

Crick: Just how certain are you that you can trust the politicians?

The politicians? You need to cut back on your generalizations. Just as I do with anyone else, I trust some politicians and distrust others. I don't know any personally, so I'm forced to use what I learn through various media, some of which is at least partially controlled by its subject(s). Are there NO politicans you trust? Do you vote?

Scientist are not in charge of politics. So just why do you trust politicians?

You assumed that I trust all politicans. Politicans in this country and other democracies are chosen by the people. I do not trust that a majority of the people of this nation will make the choices I believe they should make with respect to this issue. So I do what I can to educate others about the problem and what needs to be done to address it.

 

[ding]

The politicians? You need to cut back on your generalizations. Just as I do with anyone else, I trust some politicians and distrust others. I don't know any personally, so I'm forced to use what I learn through various media, some of which is at least partially controlled by its subject(s). Are there NO politicans you trust? Do you vote?

You assumed that I trust all politicans. Politicans in this country and other democracies are chosen by the people. I do not trust that a majority of the people of this nation will make the choices I believe they should make with respect to this issue. So I do what I can to educate others about the problem and what needs to be done to address it.

Politicians would hide the GHG effect of CO2 in with the feedback from the GHG effect of CO2 because the GHG effect is miniscule compared to their phony feedbacks and they would want to hide that.

Scientists wouldn't try to hide anything.