Bloomberg Promises $15 Million To Help Make Up For U.S. Withdrawal From Climate Deal

a reply to: face23785

Around here, we call tornadoes "mini Al Gores." Why? They have a lot in common:

Both are full of hot air.

Both spin around which ever way the wind blows.

Both destroy everything they touch.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: D8Tee

Start here: www.earth.columbia.edu...

More failed semi empirical models.

The pre-industrial pH is an estimate based on a computer model, not actual measurements. Even assuming for the sake of argument that the model has merit, there are numerous factors, such as temperature and salinity, that are unstated assumptions and can influence the actual pH. More importantly, upwelling and diurnal variations related to photosynthesis are of greater magnitude than the claimed change from pre-industrial values. As is so often the case with CAGW, there is a lot of hand waving and little specific information about the unstated assumptions.

The constant bombardment by ‘activists’ using one ‘crisis’ after another leaves people numb. I believe that this will backfire badly. Situations genuinely requiring action simply get lost in the ‘noise’. Boy who cried wolf ‘n’ all that.

If you want to look further, look here:

In this empirical study of historical emissions data and historical CO2 concentration data of the oceans over a 57-year period from 1958 to 2014, we were unable to detect a correlation between the annual rate of emissions and the mean annual change in oceanic CO2. This correlation is a pre-condition to the anthropogenic ocean acidification hypothesis which holds that the annual rate of human emissions causes annual changes in oceanic CO2 concentration (Scripps, 2013) (NOAA-1, 2015). It is therefore suggested that the study of these changes should broaden the scope of the investigation beyond
anthropogenic effects to include long term natural variability.

Source

a reply to: D8Tee

The key words are "Start here." Do you typically get to the starting line of a race and quit because you haven't made it to the finish line yet?

There are different aquatic species that are quite susceptible to pH levels. That was the start of the concern, when these species began dying off in certain areas. Ocean acidification is real. What's not real is

• it is not caused by carbon dioxide levels
  
• it is not uniform, affecting all ocean areas
  
• it is not going to wipe out species
  
• it is probably not going to continue.

You're probably not going to find a single link to tell you what's really going on, because that would obviously harm the official story on carbon dioxide. This is one of those subjects where you'll have to dig and reason things out.

And then maybe write a website to make it easier for others to discover what you will know.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Its not the first time I've looked at ocean acidification. I was hoping you'd point me to a paper with empirical data linking humans as the cause. Again I find nothing but models. The paper I've linked clearly states that there is no correlation that can be found and that natural variability should be investigated.

Here's a link to your H2S04 theory, again, desulfurization of our fuel supplies is the answer and I'm all for that.
Link

I'm an environmentalist at heart. Take the lead out of gasoline and the sulfur out of the hydrocarbon fuel supply. Two stroke boats on small lakes exhausting straight into the water should be looked at as well. I don't like pollution any more than the next person, I just hate to see this whole demonization against C02, it's not the evil it's made out to be.

a reply to: D8Tee

You need look no further than undersea volcano activity. The undersea plumes form sulfuric acid and these are transported around in normal ocean currents. That is why it seems to be localized.

There may also be a link to the release of methane and there is an awful lot of methane bubbling up from the ocean floor.

This has happened before and is part of the natural cycle.

P

a reply to: pheonix358

Natural variation. Yet someone comes along, takes some data, models it to show what the ph is of the entire ocean basin in, past present and future and hits the alarm button and broadcasts the news around the world. The next study that says, hey wait a minute, your models suck and there's no real data and evidence to support your hypothesis is ignored.

a reply to: D8Tee

To date, I have never seen a single paper published trying to link sulfur to ocean acidification... until now, that is. Thank you for the link. And pheonix358 is correct as well; the problem is not 100% man-made.

The thing is, sulfur can be removed... it is an impurity. I personally think some of the regulations are a little excessive in the US and Europe, but in this case I say better too much than too little. The problem has been excessive use of very hi g sulfur fuels in shipping lanes... they are simply not subject to the same regulations.

Carbon cannot be removed... and I think those pushing the 'evil CO2' narrative know that. If carbon is removed from hydrocarbons the result is hydrogen, which is hard to handle with current infrastructure, expensive to 'purify,' and extremely dangerous to transport. Cap & Trade does more than pad the pockets of politicians and bankers at the expense of everyone else... it limits energy production! That must lead to rationing, and from there it isn't even a leap... more of a small skip... to absolute control of people by limiting their access to energy.

There's your real conspiracy.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Desulfurization units are an easy addition to any refinery operation, I've been involved with their design installation and testing. I don't think the mandated sulfur levels are too low. Keeping the sulfur levels below 15 ppm is easy enough to do. There was one knowledgable member here that argued against their installation, as the additional energy to desulfurize the product stream will of course generate more C02 (a tiny amount in the scheme of things). Thats the danger with demonizing C02, people lose focus and forget was real pollution actually is. The regulations need to be expanded to cover marine and air usage, and that is the direction it is headed.

Hydrogen is easy enought to generate by stripping nat gas with high pressure stream over a catalyst bed, any refinery that deals with a heavy oil product stream will have a hydrogen generation unit. As far as using hydrogen as a replacement for hydrocarbons, there are all sorts of issues with that. It's a tiny little thing even in it's diatomic form, it likes to escape it's containment. There's also the issue with metal embrittlement. Hydrogen is not a primary form of energy, it's energy storage, and a dangerous one at that. If anyone wants to look into the hydrogen economy and what that would entail, look at Icelands model. It suffered a setback in the financial crisis of 2009, but they are still working on it.

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: Christosterone

Good for him, hopefully he can get all the leftest multi-millionaires and billionaires to send all their money to into oblivion.


Less money for them to fund the destruction of our 2nd Amendment.

Hey that is great and now 190 countries might do the same instead of the US always footing the bill.

a reply to: D8Tee

I'll admit I am not up to date on desulfurization methods, so I will bow to your superior knowledge on that. I do know when diesel went from 50 ppmv (I think) to the present 15 ppmv, there was a noticeable price increase. Now, whether that was due to the desulfurization process or greed hiding behind the desulfurization process, I don't know.

Everything else in your post, I will vouch for. Spot on.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

They passed the cost onto us of the desulfurization units and then some likely. A desulfurization unit that takes sulfur levels from 500 to 50 is likely 1/3 the cost of one that goes from 50 to 15. The sulfur at the low levels is tightly bound thiophenes and requires tremendous heat and pressure over a catalyst bed (most common method) to take it out.

Where I'm at we went from 500 to 15 in one step, it was expensive to retrofit the refineries. We got caught with the first few trainloads that went out, even a trace amount of high sulfur diesel left in the railcars and it would cause the entire tank to go over spec. Became a logistical nightmare of finding clean tanker cars, but that problem too was solved given a bit of time and creative thinking. Had a few trainloads actually sent back and put back thru the unit. We had shortages of U'___' here for a while, but thats many years in the past now.

God bless bloomberg?

a reply to: MariaLuis

God bless bloomberg?

Google and see how much Bloomberg is worth. If he truly thought that Global warming was going to be the end of the world why wouldn't he be using some of his BILLIONS to fix the problem. He's either a hypocrite, or if he truly believes in AGW doomsday, he's one greedy mofo that won't part with his own money to save the planet. If he truly thinks that AGW is the end and he's only giving 15 million dollars he's a homicidal baby killer. He has enough money to fund the Paris Agreement himself, whats 15 million to a guy that has 50 BILLION?