The Market, Energy, And Political Page, T+13 -- November 19, 2018

Algore bet on the wrong horse. Imagine if Algore had predicted a mini-ice age back in 1994 -- he would have been seen now as a genius -- rivaling that of Einstein. Instead, we get this:

Got gas?

A reader noted that just because it's cold somewhere, doesn't mean it's cold everywhere. See first comment. That's true, but it certainly seems cold almost everywhere in the northern hemisphere right now. At least in North America, Europe and Russia. I don't know about China.

Passed/past her shelf life (by several election cycles):

Most popular votes: the meme that "someone" in the national election received more popular votes but still lost the election is becoming a bit overused, a cliche. In fact, the way the state of California has changed their election laws means this:

• it is a fact: more than likely from here on out: the winner of the popular vote in national elections will likely not win the electoral college vote; call it the "California effect" (see below) -- Ms Kamala Harris can take every vote in California but she will still get no more electoral votes than if she won by the narrowest of margins; taking all the votes in California guarantees one will take the "national popular vote"; and, one could still lose the presidential election
• regardless of of what party you are when you go into the voting booth in California, you will leave having voted for a Democratic candidate
• over time, the GOP will completely die out in California; not only is it almost impossible now to win if one declares as a Republican in California, in the near future, GOP candidates won't even be on the California statewide ballot
• it is possible that the number of people voting in California will decline over time when it is clear that their votes no longer matter; in Texas, many disaffected folks feel their votes do not matter; Texas has the nation's worst voter turnout; my vote in Texas definitely won't count -- mostly because it will be canceled out by my wife's vote. LOL.

California caravan: US border closed temporarily to strengthen the fence. Something tells me that if the US said they were going to close the border until the Honduran caravan turned around, the Mexican government would have that caravan turned around in a NY minute.

 ****************************

The Book Page

A huge thank-you to a reader for reminding me to post this.

I finished reading this book for the third time -- each time I understand it a bit more; each time what I do understand is reinforced. I highly recommend it for any high school student in advanced chemistry or physics classes: Absolutely Small: How Quantum Theory Explains Our Everyday World, Michael D. Fayer, Ph.D, Stanford University, c. 2020.

Fayer describes how CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas. Incredibly well written and easily understood by students as young as those in middle school.

Fayer noted that without CO2 warming the planet, the Earth would probably be too cold to support human life.

Unfortunately he then concludes that section by "comparing" what is happening on Earth to that on Venus, and this is how otherwise credible physicists lose their credibility.

I speak from experience: I had a most excellent chemistry professor in college, but he was "hung up" on fluoridated water -- the "global warming" fad of the 1960's. He was a great chemistry professor but he did lose a bit of his objectivity as a scientist when he went on and on about the hazards of fluoridation. I don't know if he had any concerns about iodized salt (which, by the way, seems to me to be a misnomer of sorts).

From pp. 298 - 299 for Fayer's book:

Today the concentration of CO2 in [Earth's atmosphere] is 0.038%, or 380 ppm (parts per million by volume). In 2000, it was 368 ppm. In 1990, it was 354 ppm.....

What happens if the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere continues to rise? [And I'm not making this up. This is how Fayer answers that question.]

What happens if the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere continues to rise? Venus is an extreme example. Its atmosphere is more than 90% CO2, and its temperature is approximately 900 degrees Fahrenheit. 

Some observations and comments:

• Fayer provided the ppm / percentage conversions for several historical points in Earth's history (as low as 284 ppm in 1832 to as high as 380 ppm now); but he never noted that 90% converts to 900,000 ppm on Venus -- a tad bit more than the Earth's current 440 ppm, and not even close to the 600 ppm projected by faux environmentalists for the end of this century
• he did not note that Venus is a tad bit closer to the Sun than is Earth
• he did not provide any of the current theories for how the atmosphere on Venus came to be predominantly CO2, and none of the current theories relate at all to what is happening on Earth
• if one is interested in connecting the dots, the dots will take you to oceans (non-existent on Venus and apparently rising on Earth); classical algebra tells me that as the Earth's oceans rise, the volume of ocean water will also increase

By the way, Linus Pauling, winner of two Nobel prizes in two different fields (the only one to have done that, I believe) also lost a bit of objectivity when it came to vitamin C.

By the way, speaking of oceans, look at this: scientists unable to explain "oceans and missing water." But we know that if "we don't do anything," the Earth will be 2 degrees warmer in 2100 than it is now. From the linked article:

And that raises some questions: The water that goes down must come up, usually in the contents of volcanic eruptions. The new estimate of how much water is going down is larger than estimates of how much is being emitted by volcanoes, meaning scientists are missing something in their estimates, the researchers said.  There is no missing water in the oceans, Cai said. That means the amount of water dragged down into the crust and the amount spouted back out should be about equal. The fact that they aren't suggests that there's something about how water moves through the interior of Earth that scientists don't yet understand. 

So much to learn as long as one has an open mind. The science of global warming is not "closed." At least in my mind.

The same story at another link: from Weather.

• The Earth is eating its oceans far faster than originally thought, a new study says.
• Researchers found three times more ocean water is being sucked into the Earth's interior than estimated.

Which begs the question .... of course....