Category Archives: Environment

Does The Green House Gas Effect Really Exist?–Part 2


The previous posting,  “Does the Greenhouse gas effect really exist–Part 1”,  looked at measured radiation of longwave infrared (IR)  that demonstrated the greenhouse gas effect.

There is another way to demonstrate the  greenhouse gas effect using the SURFRAD data.  I have selected SURFRAD data for the year 2016 for the Sioux Falls, South Dakota and Desert Rock, Nevada sites

Some thoughts about the following charts 1B and 3B.  These charts plot  the radiation data—both solar short wave and the Earth’s longwave IR plus the net Solar and net longwave IR.

Charts 2B and 4B show air temperature, wind speed, relative humidity and albedo.  These data are not used in the analysis but might prove valuable to someone interested in deriving a better understanding of the energy balance.

Figure 1B Monthly Means Sioux Falls SD:  Radiation Chart For 2016

Different from the earlier chart in Part 1 which showed a 24 hour continuous plot of data, the following 4 charts are the daily data in a given month combined and  the mean extracted for each data set.

Continue reading

Advertisements

Does The Green House Gas Effect Really Exist?–Part 1


Does one have to deny that the so-called green house gases (GHG)s have an effect on global temperatures to be a skeptic?  Many of the big-league skeptics believe that the GHGs do play a part in global temperature.  So maybe not.

The following is a quote from Climate Change Reconsidered II** :

“ As carbon dioxide concentrations increase so too does the intensity of back radiation at the surface across the active wavebands of CO2, and because this radiation emanates from a lower and warmer layer of the atmosphere, the magnitude of the back radiation increases. Consequently, the net infrared radiation emanating from the surface is reduced, causing a rise in temperature that generates increased heat exchange and evaporation. This surface warming also contributes to an increase in convective instability”.

So, hold on and let me explain why I believe this.

First, a look at the big picture.   The Sun’s surface is somewhere about 5500 C.  Radiation goes out in all directions with some of it directed toward Earth.  This is Earth’s principal source of energy.  This radiation travels 93 million miles in about 8 minutes to reach Earth.  It loses much of its strength in the journey, but at the top of our atmosphere, its strength is nominally 1365 watts per square meter.  The Sun’s radiation mainly consists of photons of visible light, ultraviolet and infrared.  The full force of the Sun’s radiation seldom reaches the Earth surface because of clouds, reflection off snow and ice, scattering in the atmosphere for example and the angle that the Sun’s rays strike the surface.  Further complicating this topic is the fact on average, the Sun only shines on any place on Earth for more than 12 hours per day.

Many charts showing the Earth’s average energy budget use 340 w/m²  because when you factor in the length of the day and the spherical geometry of the Earth the effect is about ¼ the energy at the top of the atmosphere at noon.  While the Energy budget charts are useful, I believe they get in the way of understanding the GHG effect.  So, the following will uses actual measured radiation data and not the hypothetical 340w/m².

To get an idea of what happens at the surface, lets take a look at the data collected by the Surface Radiation Project. The Surface Radiation Budget Network (SURFRAD) was established in 1993 through the support of NOAA’s Office of Global Programs. The SURFRAD mission is clear:

“its primary objective is to support climate research with accurate, continuous, long-term measurements of the surface radiation budget over the United States”. 

SURFRAD currently has 7 operating stations.  These stations are very well equipped. They can measure upwelling and downwelling solar, upwelling and downwelling IR, temperature, RH, wind speed, cloud cover, UVb  and several others.   The SURFRAD website allows you to make charts of the collected day.  For starters I have plotted some data from the Desert Rock, Nevada SURFRAD site.

Figure 1A

Continue reading

The EPA HURTS The Environment And Impedes Law Enforcement


Guest posting by Richard F. Cronin

Sept. 15, 2017

As a Chem. Engr. with 40+ years’ experience, I can tell you that the current embodiment of the U.S. EPA HURTS the environment and impedes law enforcement.

The EPA only responds to the constituency which advances the reach and power of the EPA. That would be radicalized, out-of-control environmental groups. A good read on this topic is “Environmentalism Gone Mad” by Alan Carlin — former Sierra Club activist and EPA analyst.

http://environmentalismgonemad.com/

The minority leader on the U.S. Senate Committee for Public Works & the Environment is Tom Carper (D-DE). He is grossly complicit in the near-criminal activities of the EPA under the Obama administration. I have written to my Senator several times on this topic as well as the chimera of “renewable energy” and have been stiff-armed every time. Senator Carper is up for re-election in 2018 and is rumored to be mulling retirement. It can’t happen fast enough by my lights.

The EPA was established in 1973, by Richard Nixon, another advocate for growing the reach and power of the federal government. The major legislation for Clean Air and Clean Water Acts were passed in the 1960s and after a few revisions became pretty sound, state-of-the-art, readily interpreted, and enforceable body of regulations. All private interests, such as chemical companies, were on a level playing field. Regulations for solid wastes (RCRA) followed in 1976. Again, with a few tweaks RCRA became a pretty good body of regs.

Then in the ensuing years, the layer upon layer of over-regulation accumulated, which degraded the regs into a set of mandates that not even EPA regulators could interpret because of inconsistencies and contradictory guidance.

Continue reading

What?  Downwelling IR Radiation–Why?  Condensation Nuclei (Cloud?)–How?  Tyndall (Colloid) Scattering


POSTING UNDER REVIEW  SEPT 8 2017

 

 

Harvey Not Caused By Man-made Global Warming


Many of the catastrophic warming brigade are shouting that hurricane Harvey is the fruit of global warming tree.  The media, the other branch of the Democrat Party, are saying the same thing.   Joe D’Aleo’s marvelous website, IceCap, provides a chart that will show open minded people that these big hurricanes have been going on for quite a while.   Well before the supposed start of the CO2 caused global warming.   The following chart shows the history of the biggest hurricanes that have hit the US since 1851:

Note that Katrina and Sandy are not on the list.  Hurricanes can be destructive even if they are not 4 or 5 category storms.  Sandy perhaps not even a category 1 hurricane when it made landfall, caused considerable damage from the storm surge.  Storm surge occurs when a major storm pushes water on  to the shore  at levels well above normal.

Further, how do you account for the fact that the last  hurricane of category 3 or larger to make landfall on the US was 12 years ago.   I guess that means there has been no warming during those 12 years.   But wait,  how can that be because the warmers keep telling me that the “hottest ever years” are now.

cbdakota

Tesla Model 3 Sales Will Be Make Or Break For The Company


Is Tesla a major player in the transportation market?  The answer is no.  But will Tesla be?  We read that automobile engineers at the major vehicle producers begin shaking all over when they think of the threat Tesla poses.  So maybe they have magic.

Have not seen it yet and I could be wrong not being an auto engineer.

How is a stock market analyzing firm ranking Tesla versus competition?

Company TTM Sales $million $/Share Recommended Buy Price $/Share
Tesla    10,069 345 99
VW adr  267,350   31 29
Toyota adr  256,791 113 68
Damlier adr  189,396   74 56
Ford  153,596   11   8
General Motors  170,231   36 31

A casual glance says that Tesla share price is not based on actual sales but on investors belief that the company is something special.  Note that the firm that provided the above data ventured that the actual Tesla share price was about 3.5 times their recommended buy price.  The actual prices were greater than the recommend buy price for each of the companies shown in the table. But the relationship was in most cases about 1.3 or so.  Some analysts believe that Tesla is looked at more of a Tech stock than and stock of a company making vehicles.

In August 2016, Elon Musk,  the force behind the Tesla  said that he plans to sell 500,000 vehicles by 2018 and one million by 2020. From my readings, I would guess the majority of analysts don’t think he will accomplish that goal.

Several years ago, Consumer Reports (CR)  said theTesla was the best car ever.  They still believe it to have superior performance but no longer rate it an unqualified success because of reports of lack of reliability. (The Toyota in my garage was purchased based upon CR’s reliability rating of the car—and CR got it right.

The lowest priced  Tesla vehicle is the Model S.  The S’s price starts at $69,500 and grows based upon the options the buyer elects to add. The new Model 3 is said to have a base price of $35,000.

CR posted some info on the likely cost of the new Model 3 which may disappoint some potential purchasers of Model 3. In an updated (8 August 17)  posting CR said this

The base model will be black, with a Tesla-estimated range of 220 miles and 0-60 mph acceleration of 5.6 seconds. (If you want a color other than black, it’ll add $1,000.) Notable standard equipment counts WiFi and LTE internet connectivity, navigation, and the hardware to enable active safety systems, including eight cameras, forward radar, and a dozen ultrasonic sensors.

Initial Model 3 cars will feature the long-range battery (a $9,000 option) and the Premium Upgrades package (a $5,000 option), which adds heated, 12-way adjustable front seats; premium audio system; glass roof; folding/heated side mirrors; fog lamps; and a center console with covered storage and docking for two smartphones.

Enhanced Autopilot (a $5,000 option) bundles futuristic capabilities such as active cruise control, lane-keep assist, automatic lane changing and freeway exiting, and self parking. Tesla advises more such features will be added via software updates.

In the future, Tesla will offer an addition to Enhanced Autopilot that claims “full self-driving capability” for $3,000. The company says, “Model 3 will be capable of conducting trips with no action required by the person in the driver’s seat.” We are concerned that such a claim encourages distracted driving.

We expect typically equipped (early-delivery) cars will cost $57,700, which includes long-range battery, choice of color, Premium Upgrades package, Enhanced Autopilot, and 19-inch wheels.

A typically equipped model with the standard battery is expected to cost about $42,200, and comes with your choice of color and Enhanced Autopilot.

The free charging of the battery at Tesla stations will not extend to the Model 3

Car and Driver rated the new Model 3 the best of all the EV on the market.  However that rating was based on a prototype.  How valid is a prototype rating?

The US government tax credit of $7,500 has been helping Tesla sell its cars.  This tax credit ends when a manufacturer reaches sales of 200.000 vehicles.  It has been estimated that there have been over 100,000 Tesla sold using the tax credit.  The impact of the subsides provided by governmental bodies on the sale of EVs is examined in the next posting.

How successful the Model 3 is,  will define the future of the Tesla company.

cbdakota

The Ocean’s CO2 Sink Enlarges And Plankton Breaks CO2 Down And Adds Oxygen To The Atmosphere


It is amazing how some of the smallest things on Earth are very important.   Phytoplankton capture CO2 in the ocean and use the carbon to produce mass and release the oxygen.  Wikipedia says between 50% to 80 % of our atmospheric oxygen is produced by the phytoplankton. Other reference use about 50%.  Phytoplankton have chlorophyll to capture sunlight, and they use photosynthesis to turn it into chemical energy.  Really no difference from that of terrestrial plants.

EarthobservatoryNASA, gov describes phytoplankton as follows:

Derived from the Greek words phyto (plant) and plankton (made to wander or drift), phytoplankton are microscopic organisms that live in watery environments, both salty and fresh.

Some phytoplankton are bacteria, some are protists*, and most are single-celled plants. Among the common kinds are cyanobacteria, silica-encased diatoms, dinoflagellates, green algae, and chalk-coated coccolithophores.


*Protists are not animal, nor plant nor fungus.  An Amoeba is classified as a protist, for example.

Equally as important to the replenishing of the oxygen is the following:

“Phytoplankton are the foundation of the aquatic food web, the primary producers, feeding everything from microscopic, animal-like zooplankton to multi-ton whales. Small fish and invertebrates also graze on the plant-like organisms, and then those smaller animals are eaten by bigger ones.”

Phytoplankton can also be the harbingers of death or disease. Certain species of phytoplankton produce powerful biotoxins, making them responsible for so-called “red tides,” or harmful algal blooms.

All this brings me to the latest Global CO2 Budget graphic  shown below:

This graphic does not look like the one you have probably examined before. Those graphics were normally global CARBON budget.  This one is global CARBON DIOXIDE budget. CO2 weight ratio to C is 44 to 12.   To convert, multiply the C number by 3.67 to convert to CO2.

This chart would suggest that most of the O2 comes from the “land sink” rather than from the “ocean sink”.  Error bars on the land sink are big. No big deal, as I suppose most of this is supposition anyway.

The followingxxxxxchart is interesting:

The chart balances emissions—fossil fuels and industry plus land use changes against sinks –land sink, ocean sink and the atmosphere.  The ocean is absorbing more CO2.  The land sink, since about 1950, has really increased, reflecting the “greening of the planet”.

cbdakota

 

  1. It is said that the plankton to krill to Blue whale is about as close a food chain connection as one can find. The Krill eat phytoplankton and the Blue whales eat krill. The blue whale can eat as many as 40 million krill per day or around 8,000 lbs. daily in order to power its massive body.
  2. “Plankton” is Sponge Bob SquarePants’ big enemy. Just another form of harmful species.