NNadir
NNadir's JournalEarthquake on Friday, my mother's hundredth birthday over the weekend, today an eclipse.
Woo....woo...woo...
If my Mom is going to rise from the dead, this would be a perfect time to do it.
This would be a perfect time to have some superstitions, but I'm too old for that now.
As for the birthday, I challenged my late father, who never missed an opportunity on his mother's birthday that if she'd lived she'd be 115. He himself died around his mother's 103rd birthday or so.
When my grandmother died at 89, all of her still living sisters gathered around the casket and said, "She was so young." I guess that means I'm still a child, a happy thought.
Anybody carrying around a load of Sehnsucht lately?
I'm kind of done with it myself.
Sehnsucht
ˈzānˌzo͝oKHt
NOUN
Yearning; wistful longing.
Somehow, without understanding how it happened at all, I found myself with a word of the day news feed. I kind of like it, but wouldn't have any sehnsucht for it if it stopped.
This was one of the offerings I didn't already know.
A New Record Concentration for CO2, 426.35 ppm Has Been Set at the Mauna Loa CO2 Observatory.
I have just deleted an earlier post on the new record since the Mauna Loa Observatory has revised the data since yesterday.Earlier this morning the readings were as follows:
Week beginning on March 31, 2024: 426.71 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 422.64 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 400.97 ppm
Last updated: April 06, 2024
The data has been revised during the time I was writing the earlier post
The revised data, still shows a record for all time, but the increase over week 13 of 2023 is not quite as large, and not in the top 50 of all time, although still disturbing. (See Below)
As I've indicated repeatedly in my DU writings, somewhat obsessively I keep spreadsheets of the of the daily, weekly, monthly and annual data at the Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide Observatory, which I use to do calculations to record the dying of our atmosphere, a triumph of fear, dogma and ignorance that did not have to be, but nonetheless is, a fact.
Facts matter.
When writing these depressing repeating posts about new records being set, reminiscent, over the years, to the ticking of a clock at a deathwatch, I often repeat some of the language from a previous post on this awful series, as I am doing here with some modifications. It saves time.
Here's a recent post referring to weekly data:
2024's Unprecedented Terror At the Mauna Loa CO2 Observatory Continues.
Yesterday in another post I noted that March 2024 was the absolute worst month ever recorded with respect to increases over the previous year's average readings:
March 2024 Was the Worst Month Ever for CO2 Increases Measured at the Mauna Loa CO2 Observatory.
We now have the highest concentration ever recorded for a weekly average reading at the Observatory:
Week beginning on March 31, 2024: 426.35 ppm
Weekly value from 1 year ago: 422.64 ppm
Weekly value from 10 years ago: 400.97 ppm
Weekly average CO2 at Mauna Loa
I've been at this for a long time, and I've never seen anything quite like the beginning of 2024, and the shock continues week after week of this year.
We are in the 13th week of 2024.
The increase over week 13 of 2023 is 3.71 ppm.
Week 5 (5.75 ppm higher than week 5 of 2023), week 7( 5.53 ppm higher than week 7 of 2023) , and week 10 (5.66 ppm higher than week 10 of 2023,) represent three of only four such week to week comparators with readings of the previous year to exceed a 5.00 ppm increase. The only other such an increase to exceed 5.00 ppm occurred in 2016, the previous "worst year ever" in CO2 accumulations, 5.04 ppm recorded in the week beginning July 31, 2016, week 28 when compared with week 28 of 2015.
The year is still young.
Of the top 50 highest readings of the difference between weeks of the year with those of the previous year out of the 2514 such data points, 15 have taken place in the last 5 years, 35 in the last 10 years, and 44 in this century. Of the six readings from the 20th century, four occurred in 1998, when huge stretches of the Malaysian and Indonesian rainforests caught fire when slash and burn fires designed to add palm oil plantations to satisfy the demand for "renewable" biodiesel for German cars and trucks as part of their "renewable energy portfolio" went out of control.
One of the other two readings of the 20th century, those not in 1998, to appear in the list of the 50 worst such increases is now the 49th highest, 3.79 ppm recorded during the week beginning 1/24/1999. The other reading from the 20th century to appear in the top 50 comparators with that of the previous year beginning 8/21/1988, (3.91 ppm over the same week of 1987, week 34) was the worst such week ever for ten years, until 1998. It is now the 31st worst such week ever recorded.
Since the first week of the year 2000, the week beginning January 2 of that year, the increase in the concentration of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide in the collapsing planetary atmosphere has been 57.65 ppm.
Since I joined DU in late November 2022, when, then as now, the main issue on my mind is the relationship between energy and the environment, the increase in the concentration of the dangerous fossil fuel waste CO2 has been 53.78 ppm.
In my tenure at DU, during which I have been a tireless advocate for nuclear energy, right through the big exceedingly stupid brouhaha about Fukushima, where deaths from seawater approached 20,000 and deaths from radiation are vanishingly small, if extant at all. Since the Tohoku earthquake that destroyed a city where nuclear reactors were situated, the concentration of the deadly dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide has risen by 33.97 ppm.
And let's be clear, climate change kills people, threatening far more coast cities with inundation with seawater than the city destroyed (by seawater) during the Tohoku earthquake.
In reaction to these obscene numbers, I've heard endlessly from people for whom I have no intellectual, moral, scientific, professional or educational respect, all about Chernobyl, and then about Fukushima, as if these fucking trivial events matter in comparison to an entire planet in flames. The appalling indecency of these tiresome, if popular, fools, to my mind, is on a Trumpian scale:
The number of people killed by air pollution at a rate of 6 to 7 million people per year since Chernobyl in April of 1986 is between 230 million and 270 million human beings; since March of 2011, the death toll from the same cause, air pollution, has been between 80 and 90 million human beings since the disgusting distraction obsession with Fukushima began, continuing right up to this day, working to advance the use of dangerous fossil fuels, about which the mindless antinuke community of intellectual and moral Lilliputians could not care less. These death tolls do not include the vast death tolls associated with climate change, extreme weather, heat stroke, etc...
Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 (Lancet Volume 396, Issue 10258, 17–23 October 2020, Pages 1223-1249)
Climate change was already killing people with heat exposure around the time I started writing here:
Death toll exceeded 70,000 in Europe during the summer of 2003 Robine et al., Comptes Rendus Biologie, 331 (2008) 2, 171-178.
Things are unambiguously much worse in 2024 than they were in 2003.
Some other stuff I say while reporting on this 2024 disaster, the one going under the radar while we all whine and carry on about things other than a planet in flames, our planet:
Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO2
There is some statistical noise in these readings, but the overall trends are clear enough, inescapable, dire, terrifying, even as they are largely ignored or swept from attention by cheap diversions:
In spite of these ever worsening and ever more astounding numbers - people lie to each other and to themselves but numbers don't lie - you will still find people mindlessly cheering for fantasies about bourgeois toys that do nothing to address climate change, be they electric cars, solar cells and/or wind turbines, all of which are exercises in promoting the use of fossil fuels, the destruction of wilderness, and the demand for mining. We also have people here and elsewhere selling fossil fuels by rebranding them as "hydrogen," the production of hydrogen, which overwhelmingly made from fossil fuels, involving exergy destruction and thus driving climate change faster along with all of the other public fantasies.
A new wrinkle I've just observed here is the same fossil fuel salespeople who prattle on mindlessly and exceedingly dishonestly about rebranding fossil fuels as "hydrogen" (with exergy destruction) are now carrying on about "geoengineering." There's nothing surprising about this, the fossil fuel industry is very good at manufacturing dishonest distractions while pretending to be "green," and, worse, having people buy into the bullshit they handout.
A Giant Climate Lie: When they're selling hydrogen, what they're really selling is fossil fuels.
Even Exxon has joined the distraction show in pretending to give a shit about climate change. Clearly they don't; never have and never will.
The big lie people tell themselves and each other, egged on by fossil fuel interests, that these pixilated reactionary schemes, electric cars, solar cells, wind turbines, hydrogen, "geoengineering," sequestration blah, blah, blah is "doing something" about climate change. This is nonsense. That it is nonsense is clearly shown, again, by the numbers. The reactionary scheme of carrying on about so called "renewable energy" that led us here was never about climate change or any other environmental issue and the claim that it is is an afterthought. It was always about attacking the only realistic alternative to fossil fuels, nuclear energy.
Up to the present, there has never been anything quite like 2024, again, a young year, but the really scary thought is that in the future 2024 might seem ordinary.
The antinukes won and humanity, and in general, the rest of the biosphere lost.
We're clueless.
Enjoy the rest of Sunday.
March 2024 Was the Worst Month Ever for CO2 Increases Measured at the Mauna Loa CO2 Observatory.
As I've indicated repeatedly in my DU writings, somewhat obsessively I keep spreadsheets of the of the daily, weekly, monthly and annual data at the Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide Observatory, which I use to do calculations to record the dying of our atmosphere, a triumph of fear, dogma and ignorance that did not have to be, but nonetheless is, a fact.
Facts matter.
When writing these depressing repeating posts about new records being set, reminiscent, over the years, to the ticking of a clock at a deathwatch, I often repeat some of the language from a previous post on this awful series, as I am doing here with some modifications. It saves time.
Here's a recent post referring to weekly data:
2024's Unprecedented Terror At the Mauna Loa CO2 Observatory Continues.
This post refers to the monthly data.
Over the past week, there has been incredible instability in the daily readings, calling into question, to my mind, whether the issue is instrumental or a reflection of real instability owing to surges in the releases of CO2.
I commented on that earlier this week:
Is the atmosphere momentarily too unstable to measure?
It's worrisome.
Now let's cut to the chase:
Monthly data is reported on the Mauna Loa data pages going back to March of 1958, and thus increases over the previous year are available going back to March of 1959, extending over 65 years and representing 780 months.
Of those 780 months, the increase of over March 2023 measured in March 2024 is the worst ever recorded for any month in any year, 4.38 ppm:
March 2024: 425.38 ppm
March 2023: 420.99 ppm
Last updated: Apr 05, 2024
Monthly Average Mauna Loa CO2
The previous worst March to March was in 2016 compared to 2015, when the increase was 3.31 ppm.
There have been in the last 64 years only four months in which such average readings exceeded 4.00 ppm. One is this month. Another is last month (4.25 ppm higher than February 2023). The others were April of 2016, (4.16 ppm higher than April of 2015) and June of 2016 (4.01 higher than June of 2015).
A news item in the scientific journal Science suggests that the rate of heating per unit of carbon dioxide may be increasing because of changes owing to a change in the albedo of the Earth owing to improvements in the management of reflective air pollutants:
Clearer skies may be accelerating global warming
Subtitle:
I strongly object to the use of the words "declining pollution" in the subtitle. Carbon dioxide is air pollution, and the sooner we state as much, the better. Chemical air pollution kills between six and seven million people per year; heat related air pollution derived from CO2 and methane are killing by a different mechanism, and have been doing so for a long time.
Climate change was already killing people around the time I started writing here:
Death toll exceeded 70,000 in Europe during the summer of 2003 Robine et al., Comptes Rendus Biologie, 331 (2008) 2, 171-178.
Things are unambiguously much worse in 2024 than they were in 2003.
How many people died from radiation releases at Fukushima again?
The carbon dioxide released to power the production of on line and print selective attention, including but hardly limited to tiresome, insipid and mindless bullshit about Fukushima should disgust any ethical human being in my view.
It is very difficult to contain my anger.
There is some statistical noise in these readings, but the overall trends are clear enough, inescapable, dire, terrifying, even as they are largely ignored or swept from attention by cheap diversions:
In spite of these ever worsening and ever more astounding numbers - people lie to each other and to themselves but numbers don't lie - you will still find people mindlessly cheering for fantasies about bourgeois toys that do nothing to address climate change, be they electric cars, solar cells and/or wind turbines, all of which are exercises in promoting the use of fossil fuels, the destruction of wilderness, and the demand for mining. We also have people here and elsewhere selling fossil fuels by rebranding them as "hydrogen," the production of hydrogen, which overwhelmingly made from fossil fuels, involving exergy destruction and thus driving climate change faster along with all of the other public fantasies.
The big lie people tell themselves and each other that these pixilated reactionary schemes, electric cars, solar cells, wind turbines, hydrogen blah, blah, blah is "doing something" about climate change. This is nonsense. That it is nonsense is clearly shown, again, by the numbers. The reactionary scheme of carrying on about so called "renewable energy" that led us here was never about climate change or any other environmental issue and the claim that it is is an afterthought. It was always about attacking the only realistic alternative to fossil fuels, nuclear energy.
The antinukes won and humanity, and in general, the rest of the biosphere lost.
We're clueless.
Have a swell weekend.
NJ Earthquake: It turns out that's what the bang and boom here was.
Around 10:23 I heard a big boom and the house shook. (I'm working from home.)
I thought it was a plane crash or something like that - it was that loud.
It seems it was an earthquake.
It was nothing like those I experienced when I lived in California, and I didn't recognize it as such, but that's what it was.
4.8 magnitude earthquake felt in Delaware, New Jersey, New York and PA. What we know
Oh well...
Is the atmosphere momentarily too unstable to measure?
In analytical chemistry we have certain rules by which we test the validity of data, one being precision, which is the spread of data - the width of the spread - i.e. reproducibility over multiple measurements.
The Mauna Loa CO2 Observatory uses precision determinations to qualify its data; it's very high end analytical chemistry using a laser light absorbance technique known as "ring down spectroscopy." Over the last few days as of this writing, the daily measurements have been rated "unavailable" because of wide spreads in the data, with some hourly readings measuring over 430 ppm.
It's best to show this graphically from the website:
Recent Daily Average Mauna Loa CO2 (Accessed O4/04/2024)
A lack of precision can be instrumental, and often it is. There is a whole science of measurement designed to identify errors. However if one is analyzing an unstable system, precision can suffer because the variance in the data is real.
We are in new territory at the Mauna Loa CO2 Observatory; what I'm seeing there is blowing my mind. Over many years of accessing the data, I've never seen anything quite like 2024, as I noted here:
2024's Unprecedented Terror At the Mauna Loa CO2 Observatory Continues.
One hopes that the issue in these daily readings is instrumental and that it is not a function of real instability.
We'll see.
Since I joined DU in November 2002 I've been hearing, whenever climate issues are discussed, how a reactionary program of returning to the early 19th century in placing our energy sources dependent on the weather, so called "renewable energy" - precisely at the time we destabilized the weather with wishful thinking, selective attention, and soothsaying - the concentration of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide in the planetary atmosphere has risen by 52.08 ppm. In this century as a whole, beginning before I joined DU, the carbon dioxide concentrations have risen by 56.68 ppm. (These numbers are based on weekly averages at the Mauna Loa CO2 Observatory.)
While there is noise in the measurements on an hourly, daily, weekly, monthly and annual data, the analytical "rules" are designed to prevent inaccuracies inherent in owing to the methods themselves but clearly, the overall trends are surely real. We are not doing anything meaningful to address climate change other than jawboning insipidly.
That, at least, is an accurate statement.
I'm reading through Eleanor Roosevelt's Correspondence with President Harry Truman.
Here's the book:
Eleanor and Harry: The Correspondence of Eleanor Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman (Lisa Drew Books)
The forward is (appropriately) from Gloria Steinem.
I have always regarded Ms. Roosevelt as the premier Democrat of the 20th century (maybe of any century), rating above her husband in terms of the values that make me a Democrat.
Reading the detailed and wise advice she gave the President in long correspondence, and his appreciation of that advice in response, the clarity of her mind, the decency, to my mind, make her far and away the greatest "first lady," in our history, a most remarkable American, and indeed on the level of our finest Presidents. I have no doubt that Mr. Truman's outstanding Presidency profited from her very real influence.
Among first ladies, only Abagail Adams, Michelle Obama, and Hillary Clinton can compare on the point of raw intellect and a deep sense of decency.
What a remarkable American she was!! To paraphrase Willie the Shake, "all in all, we will not see her like again."
Teaching to support religious ignorance in public schools legalized in West Virginia.
A news item from the current issue of Science.
West Virginia opens the door to teaching intelligent design
Subtitle:
Science 18 MAR 20243:30 PM ETBYJEFFREY MERVIS
The bill, which the state’s governor is expected to sign before the end of the month, is the latest example of what Nicholas Matzke, an evolution educator at the University of Auckland, has called “legislation that avoids mentioning creationism in any of its varieties but advances creationist antievolutionism.” It comes nearly 2 decades after Jones, now president of Dickinson College, told the Dover, Pennsylvania, school board that its policy on teaching ID violated the so-called “establishment” clause of the U.S. Constitution that bans the government from taking action favoring any religion.
Last year, the West Virginia Senate approved a bill that would have specifically allowed teachers to talk about ID “as a theory of how the universe and humanity came to exist.” But the measure died in the House of Delegates. This year, State Senator Amy Grady (R) reintroduced the bill but revised it to remove the words “intelligent design.” Her colleagues approved it in late January and the House followed suit on 9 March, sending the bill to Republican Governor Jim Justice...
Is the US Department of Energy Anti-German?
It would seem so, at least where energy policy is concerned, since Germany replaced nuclear energy with coal, killing people and the planet.
From the US Department of Energy:
Coal-to-nuclear transitions could dramatically increase the supply of reliable, clean electricity to the grid and make progress toward the nation’s goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.
“As we work to transition to a net-zero economy, it’s absolutely essential that we provide resources to energy communities and coal workers who have helped our nation’s energy system for decades,” said Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Dr. Kathryn Huff. “This is a core promise of the Biden-Harris Administration: to deliver place-based solutions and ensure an equitable energy transition that does not leave energy communities behind.”
This information guide builds on DOE’s 2022 study that found hundreds of U.S. coal power plant sites across the country could be converted to nuclear power plant sites. DOE’s information guide offers communities a high-level look at the economic impacts, workforce transition considerations...
DOE Study Finds Replacing Coal Plants with Nuclear Plants Could Bring Hundreds More Local Jobs and Millions in Added Income and Revenue to Energy Communities
More important, to my mind, than providing jobs, as far as advancing nuclear energy is concerned - something in which the Biden administration is producing the best record of any administration in half a century - is saving human lives, but yes, building nuclear infrastructure back better will create very high tech jobs.
For full disclosure, a member of my family is sure to hold one of those jobs.
EST: Chinese Hydrogen Production Is Making Climate Change Worse.
Discussing climate change around here is often an exercise in delusion; whatever it is we think we're doing is making things worse, not better, and it's making things worse faster than ever.
2024's Unprecedented Terror At the Mauna Loa CO2 Observatory Continues. In all the years I've monitored the Mauna Loa CO2 Observatory, I've never seen anything like 2024.
We have around here, a fossil fuel sales team, including an apparent bot, working to rebrand fossil fuels as "hydrogen," this to encourage fossil fuel sales by greenwashing them, often juxtaposing, in a bait and switch fashion, advertising graphics of useless solar farms next to slick similar pictures of hydrogen stations in China to promote the lie that hydrogen is made using so called "renewable energy," which despite trillions of dollars and worldwide enthusiasm has done nothing to address the use of dangerous fossil fuels, and has, in fact, entrenched them.
I have noted that in China, as elsewhere, in my own words, just as is the case everywhere else on this planet, hydrogen is made overwhelmingly by the use of fossil fuels, including the tiny amounts made by using grid electricity, with exergy destruction, the term "exergy destruction" being a thermodynamic term for "wasted energy," i.e. low energy efficiency, waste, a consequence of the inviolable 2nd law of thermodynamics.
A Giant Climate Lie: When they're selling hydrogen, what they're really selling is fossil fuels.
Here's a publication by Chinese scientists, more or less saying exactly what I've been saying:
Subsidizing Grid-Based Electrolytic Hydrogen Will Increase Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Coal Dominated Power Systems Liqun Peng, Yang Guo, Shangwei Liu, Gang He, and Denise L. Mauzerall Environmental Science & Technology 2024 58 (12), 5187-5195
The text is clear enough.
From the introductory text:
Electrolytic hydrogen can be categorized by its electricity source: grid-based hydrogen generated using electricity from the power grid and renewable-based hydrogen generated directly from renewable electricity. Grid-based hydrogen is cheaper than renewable-based hydrogen in most provinces, requiring lower subsidies for its development. However, grid-based electricity generation relies heavily on coal and, thus, has substantial GHG emissions. Subsidizing grid-based hydrogen production would likely increase GHG emissions relative to coal-based hydrogen production, whereas hydrogen directly generated from renewable energy has minimal GHG emissions.
China aims to reach peak carbon emissions by 2030 and to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2060. To minimize cumulative carbon emissions, accelerating the transition to decarbonized hydrogen production is crucial. However, high production costs are a significant barrier to the adoption of clean electrolytic hydrogen. Currently, renewable-based hydrogen and grid-based hydrogen cost 2–6 times and 1.6–3 times more than coal- or SMR-based hydrogen, respectively. (2,5−7) Until renewable-based hydrogen becomes cost-competitive, large-scale development of hydrogen is likely to increase GHG emissions by expanding fossil- and grid-based electrolytic hydrogen production. To rapidly decarbonize the hydrogen production process, it is essential to accelerate the shift from fossil- to renewable-based hydrogen. While some provincial governments (e.g., Inner Mongolia and Gansu) have established hydrogen production goals, their plans lack a specific focus on renewable-based electrolytic hydrogen. Moreover, there is little research at the provincial level that compares life cycle GHG emissions and levelized costs of hydrogen (LCOH2) across all hydrogen production technologies. Our work provides valuable insights into the trade-offs between subsidies and GHG emissions in the development of the hydrogen industry at the provincial level in China.
Subsidies play a significant role in developing emerging technologies. To accelerate the electrolytic hydrogen transition, subsidies on hydrogen-related devices and hydrogen used for transportation have been deployed in different regions as pilot projects. (8,9) Since renewable-based hydrogen costs 2–6 times more than coal- or SMR-based hydrogen, (2,4,5) greater subsidies are required to make renewable hydrogen cost competitive and to drive commercial production...
I added the bold, underline and italics. I note that we have lots of people around here who embrace consumer balderdash about cost all the time, particularly with respect to the alleged cost of nuclear energy, because investments in nuclear energy will accrue benefits to future generations and not the assholes whining about pennies in their pockets now. Notably, the fossil fuel sales people and sales bots around here embrace antinuke rhetoric enthusiastically, which is unsurprising, because, well, the reason they greenwash fossil fuels is to sell them, not because its hard to sell fossil fuels, but because they want to extend sales indefinitely.
The argument these people make is that nuclear energy is "too expensive" but climate change isn't "too expensive."
In the State of New York, led by the actor Mark Ruffalo, whose environmental science qualifications seem to include being filmed having simulated (or perhaps real) sex with the actress Emma Stone, this decision to indicate that climate change isn't "too expensive" or "too dangerous" but nuclear power is "too dangerous" and "too expensive" has been described in the newspaper The Guardian, hardly a source of "right wing talking points."
A nuclear plant’s closure was hailed as a green win. Then emissions went up.
One would need an education in a subject other than acting in soft porn films to know what "green" means, that it might have something to do with climate change which is a serious matter, something deaths from radiation at Indian Point never was.
In defense of China, and its efforts to address climate change, I note that China has the best operating nuclear power plant construction infrastructure in place right now, and while it is squandering money, vast sums, on so called "renewable energy" it is also building nuclear plants at a pace not seen anywhere on Earth since the 1960s and 1970s in the United States and France in the 1980's. China will surpass France as one of the largest producers of nuclear power in short order, and in slightly longer order, the United States, still the world's leader in nuclear power production, owing to a scientific, engineering, and industrial infrastructure that built nuclear power plants nearly half a century ago, leaving a gift to our generation.
I note that making hydrogen from nuclear electricity is just as wasteful as making it from any form of electricity, as the cited EST article points out. One hears of high "faradaic efficiencies" but the more important "thermodynamic efficiency" is often buried in texts and requires calculation from the over voltages. (It isn't pretty.)
Like all "hydrogen will save us" marketing that is in effect the marketing of dangerous fossil fuels, there's all kinds of soothsaying in the paper cited at the outset about what "could" be done with hydrogen to address the appalling effort to accelerate the destruction of the planetary atmosphere that existing hydrogen technology involves everywhere on the planet. That appalling effort is succeeding spectacularly since the acceleration is underway, the first derivative, second derivative and third derivative with respect to time of carbon dioxide accumulations in the planetary atmosphere are all positive. (When I integrate the second derivative twice to obtain a crude quadratic, substitute the boundary conditions represented by the present data, and solve for 500 ppm concentrations of the dangerous fossil fuel waste carbon dioxide in the planetary atmosphere, it seems, by this crude model, we'll hit that figure around 2046.)
One of the appalling ideas advanced (in the soothsaying part) in this otherwise interesting paper describing current reality is to use existing gas pipelines as hydrogen pipe lines from some magical so called "renewable energy" nirvana off in some Chinese wilderness somewhere. I would suggest that the people writing this sort of thing take an introductory course in metallurgy to learn what the term "hydrogen embrittlement" means.
Anyway...
If you're a Christian who embraces the phenomenological bit about people rising from the dead, have a very happy Easter. I'm not sure a stable planet can be resurrected, but have a happy holiday anyway irrespective of what I think.
Profile Information
Gender: MaleCurrent location: New Jersey
Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 33,563