Guest Post by Richard F. Cronin
August 3, 2017
After 31 years working for E.I. DuPont de Nemours here is my understanding about “ozone depletion” — the warm-up act for anthropogenic CO2-induced “global warming”. Even the proponents of human-induced “ozone depletion” are starting to realize that the thinning of the ozone layer is a natural phenomenon that just waxes and wanes.
Ozone (O3) is produced in the stratosphere by the intense solar radiation causing photo-dissociation of the di-atomic oxygen molecule (O2). The oxygen singlet (- O) is a powerful oxidizing agent and readily reacts with another O2 molecule to yield ozone. Ozone is not produced during the dark polar winters and its lowest point is in the early spring. The ozone layer is renewed by the sunlit polar summers.
Molina and Rowland published in 1974 and their core premise is that heavier-than-air chloro-fluoro carbons (CFCs) convect upwards using a “one dimensional diffusion model”, where they photo-dissociate due to ultraviolet radiation in the band of 2000 Angstroms to yield ozone -destroying chlorine and bromine. Molina and Rowland also stated that CFCs do not dissolve in water, so they are not scrubbed out by rain at lower elevations. However, it is known that organo-halogens adsorb on dust particles and aerosols which are scrubbed out by rain in the troposphere. Finally, volcanoes emit CFCs as well as copious amounts of hydrofluoric acid (HF), hydrochloric acid (HCl) and hydrodrobromic acid (HBr) which carry up to the stratosphere. (Ian Plimer, et al). See “Heaven and Earth” by Ian Plimer, University of Adelaide. There is always some equilibrium presence of these molecules, in trace quantities.
Click here for Atmospheric aerosols in the Earth System
An iceberg as big as Delaware! For those of you that are saying, “what’s a Delaware,?” — it is the second smallest State of the USA’s 50 States. Even so, an iceberg that big is really impressive. If it ran into the Titanic, the ship’s orchestra would probably not have had time to play for the people before the ship sank. (That’s from the movie– I am not sure the orchestra really played while the ship sank.)
Around 12 July this year, this huge piece of ice broke off from the Larson C ice shelf in Antarctica. The iceberg, named A68, has an area of 5800 km² (2239 miles²). The authorities say it is the 5th largest berg in history. Because the continent of Antarctica is so inhospitable, it wasn’t till 1821 when an American seal hunter became the first person to actually put foot on this continent. History, in this instance, is very short.
Al Gore’s new documentary titled “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power” opened on July 28 with a limited engagement. Beginning in August, the documentary will be opening in many theaters. I don’t know how many, as it has not been getting great reviews, but it will be in many more than the initial 4 theaters.
The critics being mostly being quite liberal tend to give this kind of movie a big “thumbs up”. Science has little to do with their ratings of a movie like this, because they are sure if Al Gore produced it, it must all be true. However, the liberal website, VOX said, “Even An Inconvenient Sequel seems a little light on facts at times.” Many of the movie reviewers said it was, in effect, boring. Maybe that was reflected in the boxofficemojo data published on Sunday, 30 July. That they said ticket sales for the first day were $61,000, the second day were $43,000 and today (the third day) were $26,000 might reflect the boring viewpoint.
But Gore did receive the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for his first film, didn’t he? Yes, he did. However, it was the same Nobel Peace Prize Committee that presented the award to the newly elected Barrack Obama before he got into office. They awarded the Peace Prize to Yasser Arafat of the PLO, too. That Committee has a very transparent political agenda. It has very little to do with peace.
But never fear gentle reader, Al Gore will not let you down.
Bjorn Lomborg’s comments on just a few of Al Gore’s many prediction misses in his posting “Al Gore’s Climate Sequel Misses A Few Inconvenient Facts”:
Posted in AGW, Al Gore, CO2, glaciers, Global Temperatures, Ice Melt, IPCC, Paris Agreement, President Trump, radical environmentalists, Sea Ice, Sea Level
James Hansen, et al have issued a study titled “Young people’s burden: requirement of negative CO2 emissions. The authors say that unless CO2 reduction begins right away and aggressively the next generation and the one after that will have to spend a $535 trillion to make Earth habitable. This $535 trillion is not the $trillions that the warmers want to spend to bring CO2 emissions to a net zero by 2050 or 2100 (depending on which warmer group is talking). The $535 trillion is for removing atmospheric CO2.
The Hansen et al study says the global temperature will melt glaciers and consequently sea level will rise 6 to 9 meters (approximately 20 to 30 feet). Using models, the study determined a temperature rise due to a rise in atmospheric CO2 and then determined that the glaciers will melt which is the big threat. The authors conclude that the current interglacial period would match the Eemian interglacial period which occurred about 125,000 years ago. That period is believed to have experienced a 6 to 9-meter sea level rise. The chart below, from Wikipedia shows the current interglacial period, the Holocene and the Eemian and other interglacial periods. Note that the scale is more or less logarithmic and not linear.
A tangential observation—this chart shows that the Globe’s temperature has been much hotter than at present. Also, the Pleistocene running from about 1 million years ago to about 20 thousand years ago shows glacial and interglacial periods. The peak temperatures are the time of the interglacial and the rest are the times when some part of Earth was covered by advancing glaciers. Were there SUVs and fossil fuel powered plants putting out CO2 that caused the glaciers to melt?
Posted in AGW, Antartica, Climate Alarmism, Climate Models, CO2, CO2 positive feedback, fossil fuels, Global Temperatures, Ice Melt, Interglacial periods, Paris Agreement, Sea Level
The picture below shows in color the concentration of air pollution in North America. The lower US seems to have three notable pollution sources according to the color scale shown in the lower left of the photo. Roughly locating these three sources would be in California in the Western US, Chicago area in the Great Lakes region, and Baltimore to Boston along the I 95 corridor.
Now for a look at Asia and the middle East.
According to these maps, the above one shows where most of the air pollution originates.
The following from the Science website is some information about these pictures. While the text is from November last year, the picture map shows the situation in real time. These are for July 16, 2017.
By Dennis NormileNov. 28, 2016 , 3:15 PM
China’s air is notoriously toxic: Each year, it contributes to the premature deaths of some 1.6 million people. Concerned about how such pollution was affecting his family, Beijing-based data scientist Yann Boquillod founded AirVisual Earth, an online air pollution map that uses data from satellites and more than 8000 monitoring stations to display global air pollution in real time. The AirVisual Earth interactive maps prevailing wind patterns and shows color-coded concentrations of PM2.5—airborne particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter that can penetrate deep into the lungs. Users can zoom in, tilt, and spin the globe for better viewing. The air pollution visualization was crafted “so people really understand how bad it is,” says Boquillod, who hopes an informed citizenry will pressure governments and communities to clear the air. AirVisual also delivers 3-day air pollution forecasts for 6000 cities to smartphones, and it recently began selling low-cost monitors people can use to track indoor and outdoor air pollution. “People want to share that data,” Boquillod says.
The pictures are screen captures. You will have to go to the Science site link here to move around the globe.
I am not a fan of the 2.5micron particles stuff. Another study suggest that there is no evidence for it being considered a vehicle for killing massive numbers of people. See Junk Science links to see why I say that. This is a good map for chasing black carbon and other aerosols.
The New York Magazine posted, “The Uninhabitable Earth” by David Wallace-Wells. Some observers think that this posting is so bizarre that it must be a parody; meant to be something like a posting on the ONION.
I have been planning to discuss some information about CO2. When I read Part V of Mr. Wallace-Wells essay subtitled “Unbreathable Air”, I had to make it part of the discussion to illustrate why some consider the New York Magazine’s posting is a parody. Wallace-Wells notes:
“Our lungs need oxygen, but that is only a fraction of what we breathe. The fraction of carbon dioxide is growing: It just crossed 400 parts per million, and high-end estimates extrapolating from current trends suggest it will hit 1,000 ppm by 2100. At that concentration, compared to the air we breathe now, human cognitive ability declines by 21 percent.
Where is he getting his information? Let’s look at what experts have to say about CO2 .
CO2 is an asphyxiant gas and not classified as toxic or harmful. The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienist say that the TLV is 5,000 ppm. The Threshold Limit Value (TLV) is the level which a worker can be exposed to day after day for a lifetime without adverse effects. Concentrations up to 1% (10,000 ppm), will make some people feel drowsy according to some sources. Levels of 70,000 to 100,000 may cause suffocation. So, Wallace-Wells’ value of 1000ppm is truly a laughable statement. Perhaps anyone who reads the “Uninhabitable Earth” will experience a cognitive decline of 21%.
The Manhattan Contrarian posted “Looks Like Global Action On “Climate Change” Is Dead by Frances Menton. There is not much in the posting that I have not already covered. However, there are two things that do standout that I want to pass on. Menton’s posting is relative to the members of the G 20, that have just reaffirmed their support for the Paris Agreement in the Summary statement at the end of the G 20* meeting. The US did not join in the reaffirmation.
Menton notes that Russia’s intended reduction is based upon their CO2 emissions in 1990 before they collapse in 1991 of the Soviet Union.
“Then they closed down all that inefficient Soviet industry. According to a graph at Climate Action Tracker here, by 2000 their emissions were down by almost 40% from the 1990 level, and they have only crept up a little from there since.”
That was their ploy back in the days of the Kyoto Pact, too.
Posted in AGW, China, Climate Alarmism, CO2, Coal, Environment, EU, IPCC, Kyoto, Paris Agreement, President Trump, Renewable Energy, United Nations