Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Republican energy plan will yield $2.06 gasoline
PowerLine has a comparison of Republican vs Democratic energy plans.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Water Vapor a Greenhouse Gas. Global Warming Part 3
At this time we all have heard of the evils of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere. According to many sources, the CO2 blocks infrared radiation from leaving the earth for outer space, making the earth warm up.
Atmosphere levels of CO2 are around 300 parts per million. Less publicity is given to the 22000 parts per million of water vapor in the atmosphere. Water vapor is also a green house gas, as strong an infrared absorber as CO2. And there is better than 70 times as much water vapor in the air as there is CO2.
With 70% of the earth's surface covered by water, we are going to have a lot of water vapor in the air. Dry air will absorb as much water vapor as it likes, as it blows across the oceans. With the concentration of water vapor 70 times or more that of CO2, why do we worry about CO2? Even if man made CO2 was reduced to zero, the water vapor is still there, trapping heat, and warming the world.
Of the 300 PPM of CO2, much of it comes from natural causes like volcanoes and cannot be abated, no matter how drastic the restrictions on fuel burning become. A reduction of 100 PPM of CO2 (from 300 to 200 PPM) is the optimistic best that can be expected. It won't do anything for water vapor. So, today we have 22300 PPM of CO2 and water vapor. After drastic reductions in fuel use we get down to 22200 PPM. Is that going to save the world?
Few global warming enthusiasts talk much about water vapor.
Atmosphere levels of CO2 are around 300 parts per million. Less publicity is given to the 22000 parts per million of water vapor in the atmosphere. Water vapor is also a green house gas, as strong an infrared absorber as CO2. And there is better than 70 times as much water vapor in the air as there is CO2.
With 70% of the earth's surface covered by water, we are going to have a lot of water vapor in the air. Dry air will absorb as much water vapor as it likes, as it blows across the oceans. With the concentration of water vapor 70 times or more that of CO2, why do we worry about CO2? Even if man made CO2 was reduced to zero, the water vapor is still there, trapping heat, and warming the world.
Of the 300 PPM of CO2, much of it comes from natural causes like volcanoes and cannot be abated, no matter how drastic the restrictions on fuel burning become. A reduction of 100 PPM of CO2 (from 300 to 200 PPM) is the optimistic best that can be expected. It won't do anything for water vapor. So, today we have 22300 PPM of CO2 and water vapor. After drastic reductions in fuel use we get down to 22200 PPM. Is that going to save the world?
Few global warming enthusiasts talk much about water vapor.
Conoco Refinery Expansion is set back
The EPA appeals board in Washington DC revoked air permits granted by the Illinois EPA. Conoco wanted to enlarge their Roxana Illinois refinery to handle 500,000 barrels a day of heavy Canadian crude. Half a million barrels a day is 2.5% of national consumption. A 2.5% increase in supply is significant and might well reduce the price of gasoline and home heating oil. The state EPA approved the project. The refinery expansion was going to spend $4 billion dollars for construction in the state of Illinois.
However environmental "groups" (American Bottom Conservancy, National Resource Defense Council) went to the EPA appeals board in DC to stop the project. The inside the Beltway EPA bureaucrats are a softer touch than the regional people out in the mid west. The beltway folk put project on hold pending more EPA paperwork.
Our tax dollars at work, defending the price of fuel.
However environmental "groups" (American Bottom Conservancy, National Resource Defense Council) went to the EPA appeals board in DC to stop the project. The inside the Beltway EPA bureaucrats are a softer touch than the regional people out in the mid west. The beltway folk put project on hold pending more EPA paperwork.
Our tax dollars at work, defending the price of fuel.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Driving the golden spike, er golden rail joiner.
The main line of the Franconia branch of the Boston & Maine Railroad (HO gauge) is finished today. A car coasts clean around the train room, no bumps, jumps, lurches or derailments, even when hand pushed at a scale 200 miles per hour. Gotta do some wiring before I can run locomotives under power. One thing at a time.
Lessons learned. After cutting the flex track to size with rail nippers, clean up the rail ends with a flat single cut file. File the end square, and then file a slight bevel on the tops, bottoms, and sides of the rail. This gives a smooth-to-the-touch rail joint, rather than leaving a burr that might help a wheel flange climb over the rail head. Use fresh new rail joiners. Lay a 4 foot straight edge along the straight tracks to make sure they stay straight and kink free before nailing the track down.
PL300 foam board adhesive has the pleasant property of coming off with just a sharp putty knife pushed under the roadbed. Comes clean from the foam without destroying it. How do I know this? Just one or two places I had to move the roadbed over a bit to make things fit better.
Nailing down the flex track to wood roadbed also lets me relocate track to eliminate kinks and other bad spots. Just pull out the track nails with long nose pliers and move the track. Easier to correct problems than had I glued the track down.
The wire guides (1/2 inch holes and dadoes in the under neath of the table work) are already doing good. I started the Cab A bus (#14 solid copper house wire) in the wire guides and lo and behold, it stays in place, runs straight, and it will be obvious just what wire it is even after the usual under layout rats nest of wire gets started.
Lessons learned. After cutting the flex track to size with rail nippers, clean up the rail ends with a flat single cut file. File the end square, and then file a slight bevel on the tops, bottoms, and sides of the rail. This gives a smooth-to-the-touch rail joint, rather than leaving a burr that might help a wheel flange climb over the rail head. Use fresh new rail joiners. Lay a 4 foot straight edge along the straight tracks to make sure they stay straight and kink free before nailing the track down.
PL300 foam board adhesive has the pleasant property of coming off with just a sharp putty knife pushed under the roadbed. Comes clean from the foam without destroying it. How do I know this? Just one or two places I had to move the roadbed over a bit to make things fit better.
Nailing down the flex track to wood roadbed also lets me relocate track to eliminate kinks and other bad spots. Just pull out the track nails with long nose pliers and move the track. Easier to correct problems than had I glued the track down.
The wire guides (1/2 inch holes and dadoes in the under neath of the table work) are already doing good. I started the Cab A bus (#14 solid copper house wire) in the wire guides and lo and behold, it stays in place, runs straight, and it will be obvious just what wire it is even after the usual under layout rats nest of wire gets started.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
Global Warming Part 2. What's wrong with more summer?
Coming out of a harsher than average New Hampshire winter, I see little wrong with shorter winter and earlier summer. We had a three inch snowstorm on the last day of April, and had to wait until today for the first truly warm day of the year. A couple of degrees of global warming would only drive the last snow back into March and move the onset of warm weather back into mid May. That ain't a catastrophe. We get a longer growing season, we still have winter skiing.
What's so bad about that?
Historical records show the Medieval Warm Period as a climatic optimum for Europe. Good harvests, good population growth, a good time. The Little Ice Age that set in for the 15th century was a disaster. With help from the Black Death, it cut the population of Europe in half.
If the Arctic ice went out it would improve the climate in all the Arctic lands, changing them from frozen wastelands into habitable farmlands. Since ice floats mostly underwater, like 90 % of an iceberg is submerged, melting the arctic ocean ice won't do much to raise sea level.
To get real sea level rises we have to melt the Antarctic ice cap. Greenland is only 15% the size of Antarctica and much of the Greenland ice cap is already below sea level. For a back of the envelope calculation we can ignore Greenland, it's Antarctica that counts. A crude calculation based on the relative area of the world oceans and the Antarctic is scary, melting the Antarctic ice cap might raise world sea level by 200 feet. Antarctica on the other hand is on land, so the ocean currents cannot melt it the way they can the Arctic. Antarctica is really, really cold. The average temperature is -30 C. The Antarctic ice cap won't melt until global temperatures climb 30 degrees C (54 degrees F). The most extreme global warming predictions are calling for temperature rises in the single digits, that isn't enough to melt out the South Pole. Without melting Antarctica, sea level rises will be in the one or two foot range at worst.
Around here we get a nine foot tide. Seawalls, locks, beaches, beach front property is already coping with an ocean that goes up and down 9 feet. An extra foot or so at high tide isn't going to flood downtown Boston.
So, far as I can see, a few degrees of global warming will give us a nicer planet to live on.
What's so bad about that?
Historical records show the Medieval Warm Period as a climatic optimum for Europe. Good harvests, good population growth, a good time. The Little Ice Age that set in for the 15th century was a disaster. With help from the Black Death, it cut the population of Europe in half.
If the Arctic ice went out it would improve the climate in all the Arctic lands, changing them from frozen wastelands into habitable farmlands. Since ice floats mostly underwater, like 90 % of an iceberg is submerged, melting the arctic ocean ice won't do much to raise sea level.
To get real sea level rises we have to melt the Antarctic ice cap. Greenland is only 15% the size of Antarctica and much of the Greenland ice cap is already below sea level. For a back of the envelope calculation we can ignore Greenland, it's Antarctica that counts. A crude calculation based on the relative area of the world oceans and the Antarctic is scary, melting the Antarctic ice cap might raise world sea level by 200 feet. Antarctica on the other hand is on land, so the ocean currents cannot melt it the way they can the Arctic. Antarctica is really, really cold. The average temperature is -30 C. The Antarctic ice cap won't melt until global temperatures climb 30 degrees C (54 degrees F). The most extreme global warming predictions are calling for temperature rises in the single digits, that isn't enough to melt out the South Pole. Without melting Antarctica, sea level rises will be in the one or two foot range at worst.
Around here we get a nine foot tide. Seawalls, locks, beaches, beach front property is already coping with an ocean that goes up and down 9 feet. An extra foot or so at high tide isn't going to flood downtown Boston.
So, far as I can see, a few degrees of global warming will give us a nicer planet to live on.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Global Warming, Part 1
The media, the greens, the Democrats, the presidential candidates, and everyone else is taking it seriously. The Senate is debating a "close down every smokestack" bill right now.
There are a number of questions voters ought to ask them selves. For instance, is the world really warming up?
To answer this question, you want to look at real measurable data, like historical temperature records or ice cores. Computer models don't mean much. All the computers do is solve mathematical equations and the answers are no better than the equations and data fed into them. The computer adds nothing to the process, scientists could solve the equations by hand with a slide rule. Using a computer makes the results seem more true, but with or without computer all we have is a theory. Science demands that theories be backed up with real observations or experiments. Theory unsupported by observations is mere speculation. It might be true, it might not be true, but until supported by real data, it's just a theory.
The most obvious data is records of temperature, made with thermometers, going back as far as the records go. That's less than three hundred years. Fahrenheit didn't invent his thermometer until 1724. A Scientific American article some years ago dug up every temperature reading in existence and tried to find a warming trend in that mountain of data. The article proceeded to explain the corrections they had to apply to the data. For instance, as vast cities grew up around historical weather stations, the temperature readings will rise, because cities covered with black asphalt roads, black asphalt roofs, lacking green trees, are significantly hotter than the surrounding country side. In sailing ship days, sea temperature was measured by heaving a canvas bucket overside, hauling the bucket of seawater up on deck, and dropping a thermometer into it. Steamers take in seawater to cool the engines, and the thermometer is permanently mounted in the cold water intake. The canvas bucket sitting on deck would warm up slightly before the thermometer reading could be taken. The sailing ship temperature readings were corrected downward a fraction of a degree to compensate. After much more correcting and data crunching the article concluded that yes, the earth had warmed up slightly. The amount of warming was smaller than the various corrections applied to the raw data.
Translation. The amount of global warming over the past three hundred years is too small to reliably observe with a thermometer.
Going back further, we have historical records of things like the start of the grape harvest, extent of Alpine glaciers, date of freezing of seaports, first day of spring planting, first snow of winter, and so on. Looking at this historical data suggests the existence of a medieval warm period centered in the 11th and 12th centuries and a little ice age from mid 15th century until the late 18th century. The medieval warm period coincides with the high middle ages, harvests were good, life was pleasant. In the depths of the little ice age it was so cold that the River Thames froze hard enough to conduct ice fairs and markets on the river ice. That doesn't happen today. The Viking colonies in Greenland failed at the onset of the little ice age.
Translation: Historical data suggests that the world has been both warmer and cooler than today, within historical times. The little ice age only ended two hundred years ago, so some warming is expected as we come out of it.
Then we have longer term evidence from ice cores. Quite a few have been taken and analyzed. The results are equivocal, some experts see global warming in the ice cores, others don't. Not being an experienced reader of ice cores myself, all I can go on is what the experts say, and right now the experts are arguing with each other.
Finally I have seen some very dramatic satellite photos of polar ice caps. One pair of photos shows a dramatic shrinkage of the Arctic ice cap over the last dozen years. I'd like to see a few more photos just to make sure we aren't seeing summer vs winter or just a short warm spell, but the two selected photos are impressive.
There are a number of questions voters ought to ask them selves. For instance, is the world really warming up?
To answer this question, you want to look at real measurable data, like historical temperature records or ice cores. Computer models don't mean much. All the computers do is solve mathematical equations and the answers are no better than the equations and data fed into them. The computer adds nothing to the process, scientists could solve the equations by hand with a slide rule. Using a computer makes the results seem more true, but with or without computer all we have is a theory. Science demands that theories be backed up with real observations or experiments. Theory unsupported by observations is mere speculation. It might be true, it might not be true, but until supported by real data, it's just a theory.
The most obvious data is records of temperature, made with thermometers, going back as far as the records go. That's less than three hundred years. Fahrenheit didn't invent his thermometer until 1724. A Scientific American article some years ago dug up every temperature reading in existence and tried to find a warming trend in that mountain of data. The article proceeded to explain the corrections they had to apply to the data. For instance, as vast cities grew up around historical weather stations, the temperature readings will rise, because cities covered with black asphalt roads, black asphalt roofs, lacking green trees, are significantly hotter than the surrounding country side. In sailing ship days, sea temperature was measured by heaving a canvas bucket overside, hauling the bucket of seawater up on deck, and dropping a thermometer into it. Steamers take in seawater to cool the engines, and the thermometer is permanently mounted in the cold water intake. The canvas bucket sitting on deck would warm up slightly before the thermometer reading could be taken. The sailing ship temperature readings were corrected downward a fraction of a degree to compensate. After much more correcting and data crunching the article concluded that yes, the earth had warmed up slightly. The amount of warming was smaller than the various corrections applied to the raw data.
Translation. The amount of global warming over the past three hundred years is too small to reliably observe with a thermometer.
Going back further, we have historical records of things like the start of the grape harvest, extent of Alpine glaciers, date of freezing of seaports, first day of spring planting, first snow of winter, and so on. Looking at this historical data suggests the existence of a medieval warm period centered in the 11th and 12th centuries and a little ice age from mid 15th century until the late 18th century. The medieval warm period coincides with the high middle ages, harvests were good, life was pleasant. In the depths of the little ice age it was so cold that the River Thames froze hard enough to conduct ice fairs and markets on the river ice. That doesn't happen today. The Viking colonies in Greenland failed at the onset of the little ice age.
Translation: Historical data suggests that the world has been both warmer and cooler than today, within historical times. The little ice age only ended two hundred years ago, so some warming is expected as we come out of it.
Then we have longer term evidence from ice cores. Quite a few have been taken and analyzed. The results are equivocal, some experts see global warming in the ice cores, others don't. Not being an experienced reader of ice cores myself, all I can go on is what the experts say, and right now the experts are arguing with each other.
Finally I have seen some very dramatic satellite photos of polar ice caps. One pair of photos shows a dramatic shrinkage of the Arctic ice cap over the last dozen years. I'd like to see a few more photos just to make sure we aren't seeing summer vs winter or just a short warm spell, but the two selected photos are impressive.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Whither Hillary?
This email came in this morning:
Dear David,
Over the course of this campaign, I have seen the promise of America in your courage and character, your energy and ingenuity, and your compassion and faith.
Your spirit has inspired me every day in this race. While I traveled this country talking about how I wanted to help you -- time and again, you reached out to help me. To grab my hand or grip my arm, to look me in my eyes and tell me, don’t quit, keep fighting, stay in this race for us. There were days when I had strength enough for the both of us -- and on the days I didn't, I leaned on you.
This has always been your campaign, and tonight, there's no one I want to hear from more than you. I hope you're as proud as I am of what we've done and that you'll take a moment to share your thoughts with me now at my website.
I want to congratulate Senator Obama and his supporters on the extraordinary race that they have run. Senator Obama has inspired so many Americans to care about politics and empowered so many more to get involved, and our party and our democracy are stronger and more vibrant as a result.
Whatever path I travel next, I promise I will keep faith with you and everyone I have met across this good and great country. There is no possible way to thank you enough for everything you have done throughout this primary season, and you will always be in my heart.
Sincerely,
Hillary Rodham Clinton
It isn't quite a concession speech, but it is close to one.
Dear David,
Over the course of this campaign, I have seen the promise of America in your courage and character, your energy and ingenuity, and your compassion and faith.
Your spirit has inspired me every day in this race. While I traveled this country talking about how I wanted to help you -- time and again, you reached out to help me. To grab my hand or grip my arm, to look me in my eyes and tell me, don’t quit, keep fighting, stay in this race for us. There were days when I had strength enough for the both of us -- and on the days I didn't, I leaned on you.
This has always been your campaign, and tonight, there's no one I want to hear from more than you. I hope you're as proud as I am of what we've done and that you'll take a moment to share your thoughts with me now at my website.
I want to congratulate Senator Obama and his supporters on the extraordinary race that they have run. Senator Obama has inspired so many Americans to care about politics and empowered so many more to get involved, and our party and our democracy are stronger and more vibrant as a result.
Whatever path I travel next, I promise I will keep faith with you and everyone I have met across this good and great country. There is no possible way to thank you enough for everything you have done throughout this primary season, and you will always be in my heart.
Sincerely,
Hillary Rodham Clinton
It isn't quite a concession speech, but it is close to one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)