Sunday, April 12, 2015

Because the Saturn V Rocket ...


"Space Bananas," Lil' OB, 2008, magic marker on paper

Just stay with me on this.

We all remember the Apollo missions. We all remember the staggering launches and subsequent visuals.

I also remember a distinct disappointment in my tiny self when I learned the giant rocket would not be torpedoing through space like in the cartoons or cheesy old movies.

"The astronauts only need the big rocket to get through the earth's atmosphere, honey," my dad explained as I blinked at the mystifying image on the black and white screen. "After the rocket does its job, they only need that little pod."

"Oh."

From Wiki on the Saturn V Rocket:

The second stage accelerated the Saturn V through the upper atmosphere with 1,100,000 pounds-force (4,900 kN) of thrust in vacuum. 

Friends, that is badass.

Humble hostess, circa 1970
Now then, if we needed a Saturn V Rocket to overcome the earth's atmosphere/gravity in order to get ol' John up to the moon and take that one small step, it seems to me--on a strictly intuitive basis--that the atmosphere is a pretty tight lid covering the earth.

Yes? No? Anyone? Bueller?

If the answer is yes, then could someone from the climate change denial camp please explain to me where all of our gaseous emissions are going?

Where are they going? What's happening to them? Are they turning into fairy dust? Are magical birds inhaling them and exhaling purified air? Or maybe the same atmosphere that requires 1.1 million pounds of force to overcome is making an exception with the exhaust from my VeeDubs and just letting it float through to the rest of the infinite universe. 

I'm all ears: explain it to me.

So our friends in Wisconsin can "ban" discussing climate change (so much for free speech, eh?), but I promise you: if we don't take of the earth, Mother Nature will take us out and repair it in her own sweet time.

There is no debate. She will win this fight in the end.

*  *  *

 

61 comments:

Elisson said...

It's not the atmosphere that required all that force to punch through... it's Earth's gravity well. But that gravity well is precisely what holds the atmosphere in place, along with all the crap we put in it.

Erin O'Brien said...

I am aware of that, El, and noted it in the graph next to my pic.

Anonymous said...

Climate change deniers? The climate is always changing , it has been for millions of years, the question is how much do human’s impact the change? I remember growing up and being told the next ice age was around the corner, then we graduated to global warming, now its climate change. Do humans impact climate, of course, so do cows, birds, volcanos, that big old shiny thing in the sky and the earth’s mantle, and thousands of other things we don’t have a clue about. All of this from people who cannot even predict tomorrows temperature within three degrees. I am all about preserving the earth , but give me some facts, or admit we don’t have clue. Coffee good for you or bad for you? Ask a scientist.

Erin O'Brien said...

Here's a fact: if you pull into your garage, shut the door and park with the engine running, the experiment will not end well.

The same exhaust isn't any less toxic when we're pumping it into the air. You don't want to believe me, then believe the guys that brought you the Saturn V.

Michael Lawless said...

Even if Global Warming is NOT man made (and I believe it is)...pollution bad!

Bill said...

Let's see. The human race, in an attempt to thrive, create this stuff to make life nice and enjoyable. The "exhaust" from this stuff goes somewhere I guess but no one can state for certain that it is going to negatively impact the creatures inhabiting our planet thousands of years from now. My theory is that our bad things have caused the planet Mars to warm up. I understand that over the last 100 years it's gotten pretty hot up there.

Erin O'Brien said...

Why wait thousands of years when you can go to Beijing today?

Bill, you could not have reinforced my point more beautifully if you tried.

Bill said...

and, you're making my point! China needs to get their act together. No one is in favor of dirty air or water. If that's the conversation you want to have, have that one. You're doing an apples and oranges on me. Climate change happens on Earth with or without humans. Pollution is largely man made and we have, in the United States, been doing a good job reducing it. But, it is incredibly naïve to blame humans for climate change.

Erin O'Brien said...

OH I DIDN'T GET IT! You're all for pro-environment measures. Wow. Guess the egg's on my face ..

Now all of us affable overfed entitled Americans can blissfully carry on seeing as we've "been doing a good job," and wag our fingers at the Chinese.

Sure, Bill. Sure.

You go read the NASA link I posted earlier in this comment section. You don't want to believe it, don't believe it. After all, you're the same guy who blames CA's water troubles on insufficient storage.

No matter what yo believe, we're all going down together.

Anonymous said...

+1
«Senex Ægypti Parvi»

Anonymous said...

U.S. consumption fuels the Chinese factories. Wal Mart is a Communist Conspiracy. Argument fail.

RJ

Anonymous said...

7.2 Billion Humans on Eart, widely dispersed, with a unique capacity of digging up and releasing stored carbon into the atmosphere. It would be naive not to measure the impact on global climate. I don't know anyone claiming humanity is the sole cause of climate change. Bill trolls us again.

RJ

Dick Cheney said...

The real story here is, which Obama won't admit, is that cats are the most prominent cause of global warming. You see, it turns out that any increase in temperature will extend the feline breeding season and then the number of cats increases, and the cats are killing more birds, and this kind of tilts the ecological system in the their favor because the birds have this role in protecting the ecosystem.

So what we need to do is decrease the ratio of cat to bird. Now I've got a wood-chipper in my yard that'll do the trick for starters. Of course we'll have to get all those kids of my lawn first. I fired a few warning shots at them using my M16 and now those lazy hippies are just lying around.

Anonymous said...

I had no idea that the had accurate means to measure temp. in the 1880's. I would never question NASA, but I am not sure this is the same group that launched anything.

James Old Guy

Anonymous said...

@Dick...

With all due respect Mr. Vice President Pirates, not cats, account for much of the warming. See Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster/Letter to Kansas Textbook Committee for additional details.

RJ

Bill said...

That's right Erin! Governor Brown and I both agree. That's why we'll be building more storage that, if we had it now, would allow me keep my lawn green. You guys crack me up. WalMart? Talk about naïve.

Erin O'Brien said...

Eventually, the righties are going to have to open their eyes. They'll do it when climate change starts to cost them money. That's when the shoulder shrug along with the climate change happens and it ain't our fault, so there's nothing we can do chant will come to an end.

I talk to professionals on the ground in the environmental wars all the time. I see the big picture. There is only one way this is going to go.

Bill, you chortle all you want. Mother Nature is going to win and we're either going to be with her on that or dead.

Joe said...

We need to do everything possible to ensure a clean environment for our grandchildren. Unlike probably every commenter here, I have been to Beijing and seen the orange skies.

Now comes the "but" . Too many push climate change as a means to an end for political and economic reasons. The disputed "science" of Michael Mann and others calls the whole concept into question. There is no consensus in science and there are real questions about the severity and causes of climate change. Such questioning does not automatically mean one wants dirty air or polluted water.

When the models used to predict the future can accurately predict the past climate I will be on board. When the models can explain the midevael warming and the ice ages then I will ebrace radical change.

Until then I will try to conserve where it is practical. But destroying our economy when India and China refuse is pointless. Windmills and solar panels cannot provide our energy needs. Protests and cost make nukes a non-option. That leaves fossil Fuels.

Anonymous said...

@Bill

Reservoirs all over the state are dry. Do you think lack of water storage capacity is really Cali's problem?

RJ

Anonymous said...

@ Erin--

Considering the outlandish costs bandied about associated with a return to the moon or a manned trip to Mars I wonder: What the fuck did we do with the blueprints of the Apollo program? Considering the costs incurred previously, didn't they keep all of that stuff on file?

MR

Bill said...

Mother nature (God?) always wins.

Erin O'Brien said...

Well then, we've got a a regular rightie green fest going on here.

For starters, Joe, solar is coming faster than you think.

So ... Beijing, eh? Did a high-efficiency light bulb actually go on over your head? For someone who gives birth to a full grown bison at the mere suggestion of an environmental regulation, this is quite a turn around.

Or ... are we not allowed to have regulation and wait for the free market to take care of it? Or ... can we have regulation as long as we just don't associate it with the concept of climate change? You know, the way some people are okay with a "civil union" between two men (as long as we don't call it marriage).

And the it's-no-use-until-China-and-India-clean-up argument is frankly, laughable and beneath you.

All environmental clean-up is good environmental clean-up.

Erin O'Brien said...

Also, Joe, James, Bill, you're all going to want to read this link and start getting in line.

"For politicians and climate-denial groups, the elixir of life is money. Now that corporations are becoming reluctant to bankroll crazy theories, the surrender of climate-change deniers will follow."

Joe said...

I'm saying we could change every car in America to a Chevy Volt and it won't make a difference. Spend time in China and then lecture me.

There are some compelling arguments on the other side, you should read some Judith Curry.

One can be in favor of a clean environment without crippling the economy.

Al Gore and Michael Mann were dead wrong on the 10 and 20 predictions. There has been no joticible warming for 18 years.

The choice does not have to be draconianian environmental regulations or unfettered pollution. Like most things in life there is middle ground.

As usual I was wrong to expect reasonable discussion. We have to be all in or nothing on leftist ideas.

Erin O'Brien said...

Joe, could you please not be so pissy all the time?

Also, AS USUAL, no credible links in any of the comments from the rightie contingent.

Anonymous said...

@ Joe-

Interesting caveat. One must have beenn physically present in China to have credibility on climate change.

I'll consent to that if christian, conservative men will consent to keeping out of uterus debates.

Anyway...I would like to see data on the conversion of every auto in the U.S. to electric. I suspect there would be a measurable effect but I have no data to prove it. Can you empirically demonstrate your assertion?

RJ

Erin O'Brien said...

Just back from a bracing 4.5 mile walk wherein a revelation bloomed:

Joe, if enacting environmental policy and thereby "destroying our economy when India and China refuse is pointless," are you implying that China's and India's pollution has a global impact?

Really?

What is that global impact, Joe? Why should anyone in the United States worry about China's poor air quality?

Joe said...

If emnvironmental policy has no global impact there is no reason to pass a global treaty we should just do what is best for the USA

How about when you go 100% solar and 100% recycled and leave zero carbon footprint you lecture me, until then we are just various shades of hypocrites.

On the other hand, you neither asked nor encouraged my participation, so there is certainly no requirement for a reasonable discussion.

Joe said...

http://www.newsweek.com/whats-true-cost-wind-power-321480

Yes more wind power to replace coal please!

This is what I'm talking about

Erin O'Brien said...

Joe, YOU are the only one to bring up wind power. YOU are the only one talking about economy-crushing regulations without so much as one detail.

I am wholly aware of my environmental impact and reference the emissions from my very own VeeDubs in the article.

You say a clean environment is important. Then you say why step up efforts in the US if China and India aren't doing their part. They you say something I don't quite understand about a global treaty.

Let's keep it simple: Do you believe China's or India's pollution has a global impact?

Yes or no?

And yes, by all means I encourage your participation.

Anonymous said...

Joe is a fucking Iconoclast. He makes the rules and breaks the rules of "Reasonable Discussion."

He just wanted to brag post about having been to Beijing. If I trolled his blog like he trolls yours he'd ban me.

Go bake a Gay Wedding Cake Indiana Boy.

RJ

Joe said...

RJ

I have never banned anyone. All comments are welcome. Please participate.

You have no idea on my position on gay marriage and make stereotype decisions on facts not in evidence. That just makes you an ass.

Ms OB

Certianly pollution is a global problem

Do I have an issue with forced environmental regulation like those affecting coal burning plants? Yes because there is no evidence that it will change any climate change that may be happening. There is not currently an economically alternative outside of nukes.

The poor and middle class are hurt by the increases in energy costs that may result. And yes, I like my money and want to keep as much of it as possible. I don't like the monopolistic utility companies any more than most.

Erin O'Brien said...

Coal is going down.

Sure regulation contributes to that, but dirt cheap natural gas take the lion's share. Welcome to the free market.

I am glad to hear your comments, Joe. But the reality is that the environment isn't going to clean up itself. There is going to have to be regulation, change and hard goddamn work.

It's not going to be easy. After all, the rightie contingent in this country has essentially made anyone who cares about air and water quality Public Enemy Number One.

I suspect we will see China take giant steps with their iron boots before we do anything. If they can clean up, perhaps that will set an example. Side note: can you imagine what the respiratory health of the urban Chinese population will look like in 20 or 30 years? Perhaps that will be the catalyst. Those masks can only do so much.

Not that anyone asked, but I have a unique point of view: I write development news in a former Rust Belt city on the rise. I see two key components to profound environmental change:

1) a massive and robust push for inviting, efficient public transportation.

2) A national push for free, fiber optic internet for everyone.

The youth of America is going to help me with both of those.

Joe said...

I don't know anyone that wants to have dirty water or dirty air: righty or lefty. There does need to be regulation. We can disagree on how much.

Of course public transportation is not feasible everywhere. The old inter urban lines went out of business a century ago for a reason. I am for public transportation everywhere it can at least not lose money.

Anonymous said...

The Los Angeles street car system was one of the world's largest by the 1920s. The interurban lines and their associated trolleys and streetcars went out of business for more than one reason, and one pretty big reason was that interests including the automobile industry, the rubber industry, and the oil industry were buying them and ripping them up to augment sales of cars, buses, tires and fuel. Remember that plot point in "Who Framed Roger Rabbit"? It wasn't from whole cloth.

There seem to be a few viable projects under discussion to return (and not just in LA) to some street-level mass transit options, but when a civic asset like the right-of-ways associated with street car and/or trolley systems is destroyed, a return is made even more difficult (and expensive).


MR


Anonymous said...

RE: More storage?

Lake Mead, the product of the Hoover Dam in the Colorado River watershed, is at a 40-year low. Outflow has been hovering around 50% of capacity. The current level is approximately 1,080 above sea level. Were it to fall below 1,000 feet it has the potential to make Hoover Dam useless, and that includes hydroelectricity as well as irrigation and drinking water. It hasn't been full (1221 feet above sea level) since 1983.

Storage isn't the problem.

MR

Anonymous said...

PS--Slate Magazine of 7/25/14 ran an article featuring before-and-after photographs from sites around Lake Mead, from 2007 to today.

It currently looks like the Salton Sea. For the benefit of non-Californians, comparisons to the Salton Sea are a bad thing.

MR

Erin O'Brien said...

Salton Sea is an excellent example of why it's bad to eff with Mother Nature. Go on and put "Bombay Beach" in your Netflix queue.

Re: public transportation. what MR said, but I keep trying to tell you people, the Youth of America do not want cars.

Anonymous said...

Tangent: On this date in 1942, Colonel Jimmy Doolittle and his boys took off for Tokyo to do their thing. Dismissed as the 'Do Nothing' raid by the Japanese, it is difficult to OVER-estimate its importance. It warped Japanese strategic thinking and was an important contributing factor, some six weeks hence, to their disastrous Midway operation.


MR

Bill said...

Maybe someone can explain how public transportation will change the climate

Anonymous said...

I like turtles.


MR

Anonymous said...

@ RJ-

Beijing hasn't been the same since they moved the capitol from Peking.

MR

Anonymous said...

For an object lesson in the difference between the weather, which you can see from the window, and the climate, which the ISS crew can see out of their window, one might take a look at the satellite imagery of the accelerating melt-off of the Greenland ice cap. If I were 20 again I'd probably be more alarmed, but my boys are twenty-ish, and I'm alarmed for them.

Drop by again tomorrow. We'll have a panel discussion on the difference between albedo and libido, and a contest: What should we call Hemingway's "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" seeing as how there's no snow up there anymore.

MR

Bill said...

Gee Mr. Science. I wonder if 2000 years of weather would be considered climate. It's all so confusing for those of who are right thinkers. We, in California, are suffering through a drought and our reservoirs are 75% empty. The reservoirs are where we store the water from rain, melting snow, etc. when the weather gives us rain and snow. Governor Brown (a leftie) is pushing for more reservoirs. You see, if we had twice as many reservoirs we would have twice as much water remaining. (one reservoir, 75% empty = X. 2 reservoirs, 75% empty = X x 2. I know. It is so complicated.

Dudesworthy said...

Solving the water shortage in California requires some serious thinking about almond farming.

http://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-agriculture/totally-nuts-growing-almonds-california-uses-over-250-more-water-all-los-angeles.html

Almond farming uses 250% more water than LA, and 70% of the almonds are exported to China.

Bill said...

Solving the water shortage in California requires more water. Only 11% is for personal use and neighborhood lawns. Do we want to stop growing Almonds? No. Do we want to stop growing fruits and vegetables? No.

Anonymous said...

Given time and proper financing Elon Musk could teleport water to California from Seattle. I suggest Bill and Joe handle the IPO. Maybe then they'd have so much money to count they'd have no time for comments.

A guy can dream.

RJ

Anonymous said...

The mighty Colorado River, the instrument by which God etched one of his most astonishing creations, the Grand Canyon, no longer reaches the ocean. It more or less peters out into marshland forty miles away in Mexico. This is the case due in no small measure to the needs of California*. The states of the American Southwest are pumping groundwater at an alarming rate.

But more reservoir capacity will solve the entire dilemma. The Southwest needs more dry lakes to complement the already existing dry lakes. We can just make it up with volume.

Incroyable.

MR

*--If anyone is curious about what allocation each state in the Colorado basin receives, search "Colorado River Compact of 1922."

Erin O'Brien said...

Man transforms CA from a semi-arid desert to a lush agricultural expanse. Things chug along nicely for a while, and then they go south.

Wide-eyed blinking commences from the right: How could this be our fault?

Okay, fine. Say the drought is a natural matter of course. So what? It seems pretty apparent that the man-made CA water system cannot sustain the macrocosm it has built through these hard times.

Mother Nature shrugs and we ALL have a massive problem on our hands.

Anonymous said...

MR

I wonder, had they existed, what the satellite images of the Greenland ice pack would look like in the 9th century when the Inuit settled the northwest part of Greenland or in the 11th century when the Norse farmed the southern part of the land they named Greenland

-Rex Stetson

Anonymous said...

California experienced some of the wettest conditions of its history during the late 19th and most of the 20th Century. See the graph in this article:

http://www.mercurynews.com/science/ci_24993601/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more

Perhaps it is less man made global warming as Mother Nature making historical corrections?

Plus, it might be environmental policy that is making the drought worse?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/californias-green-drought-1428271308

- Rex Stetson



Anonymous said...

@ Rex--And I wonder how many oarsmen it took to achieve escape velocity in a longboat.

Anonymous said...

ELSEWHERE:

In other news, Hormel, Con-Agra and Archer-Daniels-Midland have teamed up on new soup-stone technology with the potential to eliminate hunger for good. Film at 11:00.


MR

Anonymous said...

Non-trivial trivia: A United States Navy supercarrier of the Nimitz class can process roughly 18,000 gallons of potable water from sea water. That's 400K per day. The same vessels can generate electricity for a city of 100,000 people.

Anyone living anywhere between Frisco and Flagstaff ought to be asking their representatives in the Congress why that capacity can't be adapted for civilian needs.

MR

Anonymous said...

@MR-
Downside of desalination is the salt has to be put somewhere. Some landbased facilities just dump it back in the sea. Can cause enviromental degradation locally.

RJ

Anonymous said...

@ RJ--The folks at Taco Bell or Arby's will be happy to take the salt...

MR

Jake said...

Hi Erin and other,

here's a link: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/briefings/201501.pdf
This is where NASA and NOAA claim that 2014 was the warmest year on record. If you scroll down to page 5 you will see that they aren't even half certain that is the case. Yet that is conveniently overlooked by news media, bureaucrats, politicians, lobbyist etc.

Here's another link from NOAA: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/199713
This is an older entry claiming that 1997 was the hottest with a global average of 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit.
Here's the same page for 2014: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201413
Quote:"The annually-averaged temperature was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F)" That would be 57.69 degrees Fahrenheit.

So which one is it?

The point I'm tying to make it that climate science is not all that simple and straight forward as some might like you to believe.

Erin O'Brien said...

In one million years, I'd never say climate change is "simple and straight forward."

The point I'm trying to make is that you don't have to be a scientist to know that pollution is bad, bad, bad, whether you believe the climate is changing or not.

Anonymous said...

@ Erin--

Folks who play the 'China and India' gambit usually leave out an important reality: China and India are home to somewhat around 4 billion people. India generates roughly 1.4 tons per capita of CO-2. China generates somewhat around 6.3 tons per capita.

The United States generates 18.1 tons per capita.

Combined, India and China emit roughly 10 billion tons of CO-2 per annum. The United States, with a population that is a modest fraction of their populace, emits 5.6 billion tons.

MR

Erin O'Brien said...

I wonder if the same it's-no-use-look-at-China people tell their 10-year-old, "Well, Billy, Mrs. Johnson tells me that Timmy's room next door is a mess, so don't you worry about tidying up yours."

uh-huh.

Anonymous said...

How's this for timing?

New in the library this week is "Water to the Angels" by Les Standiford. It's a history of the efforts to secure water for the Los Angeles basin, focusing on the role played by William Mulholland. Extra value? Standiford includes a fiction-from-fact segment about the historical narrative versus the mythology of the film 'Chinatown.'

I only picked it up yesterday but after 40 or 50 pages it sure looks like a winner.

MR