Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

[LibertyBell]

On 8/25/2025 at 9:33 AM, TheClimateChanger said:

 

Q: How about ignoring the human aspect? Which one carried more total heat? A temp of 92F, and dewpoint of 75F, or a temp. of 104F, and dewpoint of 50F?

 

 

To determine which condition carries more total heat, ignoring the human aspect, we need to evaluate the total energy content of the air, which depends on both temperature and moisture content. The enthalpy of the air, which measures the total heat (sensible heat from temperature plus latent heat from moisture), is the appropriate metric. Wet bulb temperature can help approximate this, but we’ll calculate enthalpy directly using the given temperatures and dewpoints.Given Conditions:

1. Condition 1: Dry bulb temperature = 92°F, Dewpoint = 75°F
2. Condition 2: Dry bulb temperature = 104°F, Dewpoint = 50°F

Step 1: Understand the Components

• Dry bulb temperature reflects the sensible heat (energy associated with temperature).
• Dewpoint indicates the moisture content, which relates to latent heat (energy tied to water vapor).
• Higher dewpoint means more moisture, contributing to latent heat, while higher dry bulb temperature increases sensible heat.
• Enthalpy (in Btu/lb of dry air) combines both sensible and latent heat and is commonly used in psychrometrics to compare total heat content.

Step 2: Approximate Enthalpy CalculationEnthalpy of moist air can be calculated using the formula:

h=0.24⋅T+W⋅(1061+0.444⋅T)h = 0.24 \cdot T + W \cdot (1061 + 0.444 \cdot T)h = 0.24 \cdot T + W \cdot (1061 + 0.444 \cdot T)

where:

• ( h ) is enthalpy (Btu/lb of dry air),
• ( T ) is dry bulb temperature (°F),
• ( W ) is the humidity ratio (lb of water vapor per lb of dry air),
• 0.24 is the specific heat of dry air (Btu/lb·°F),
• 1061 is the latent heat of vaporization of water (Btu/lb at 0°F),
• 0.444 is the specific heat of water vapor (Btu/lb·°F).

The humidity ratio ( W ) depends on the dewpoint, which determines the vapor pressure of water in the air. We can estimate ( W ) using the saturation pressure at the dewpoint and the atmospheric pressure (assumed standard at 14.696 psia or 101.325 kPa).Step 2a: Calculate Humidity RatioThe humidity ratio is given by:

W=0.62198⋅PvP−PvW = \frac{0.62198 \cdot P_v}{P - P_v}W = \frac{0.62198 \cdot P_v}{P - P_v}

where:

• PvP_vP_v
  is the vapor pressure at the dewpoint (psia),
• ( P ) is atmospheric pressure (14.696 psia).

The vapor pressure

PvP_vP_v

can be approximated using the Antoine equation or simplified correlations for saturation pressure at the dewpoint temperature. A common approximation for saturation pressure (in psia) over liquid water is:

Pv=exp⁡(20.386−5132Td+459.67)P_v = \exp\left(20.386 - \frac{5132}{T_d + 459.67}\right)P_v = \exp\left(20.386 - \frac{5132}{T_d + 459.67}\right)

where

TdT_dT_d

is the dewpoint in °F, and

Td+459.67T_d + 459.67T_d + 459.67

converts to °R (Rankine).Condition 1: Dewpoint = 75°F

• Td=75°FT_d = 75°FT_d = 75°F
  , so
  Td+459.67=534.67°RT_d + 459.67 = 534.67°RT_d + 459.67 = 534.67°R
  .
• Pv=exp⁡(20.386−5132534.67)≈exp⁡(20.386−9.599)≈exp⁡(10.787)≈0.487 psiaP_v = \exp\left(20.386 - \frac{5132}{534.67}\right) \approx \exp(20.386 - 9.599) \approx \exp(10.787) \approx 0.487 \, \text{psia}P_v = \exp\left(20.386 - \frac{5132}{534.67}\right) \approx \exp(20.386 - 9.599) \approx \exp(10.787) \approx 0.487 \, \text{psia}
  .
• W=0.62198⋅0.48714.696−0.487≈0.302914.209≈0.0213 lb water/lb dry airW = \frac{0.62198 \cdot 0.487}{14.696 - 0.487} \approx \frac{0.3029}{14.209} \approx 0.0213 \, \text{lb water/lb dry air}W = \frac{0.62198 \cdot 0.487}{14.696 - 0.487} \approx \frac{0.3029}{14.209} \approx 0.0213 \, \text{lb water/lb dry air}
  .

Condition 2: Dewpoint = 50°F

• Td=50°FT_d = 50°FT_d = 50°F
  , so
  Td+459.67=509.67°RT_d + 459.67 = 509.67°RT_d + 459.67 = 509.67°R
  .
• Pv=exp⁡(20.386−5132509.67)≈exp⁡(20.386−10.071)≈exp⁡(10.315)≈0.300 psiaP_v = \exp\left(20.386 - \frac{5132}{509.67}\right) \approx \exp(20.386 - 10.071) \approx \exp(10.315) \approx 0.300 \, \text{psia}P_v = \exp\left(20.386 - \frac{5132}{509.67}\right) \approx \exp(20.386 - 10.071) \approx \exp(10.315) \approx 0.300 \, \text{psia}
  .
• W=0.62198⋅0.30014.696−0.300≈0.186614.396≈0.0130 lb water/lb dry airW = \frac{0.62198 \cdot 0.300}{14.696 - 0.300} \approx \frac{0.1866}{14.396} \approx 0.0130 \, \text{lb water/lb dry air}W = \frac{0.62198 \cdot 0.300}{14.696 - 0.300} \approx \frac{0.1866}{14.396} \approx 0.0130 \, \text{lb water/lb dry air}
  .

Step 2b: Calculate Enthalpy Condition 1: 92°F, Dewpoint 75°F

• T=92°FT = 92°FT = 92°F
  ,
  W=0.0213W = 0.0213W = 0.0213
  .
• Sensible heat:
  0.24⋅92=22.08 Btu/lb0.24 \cdot 92 = 22.08 \, \text{Btu/lb}0.24 \cdot 92 = 22.08 \, \text{Btu/lb}
  .
• Latent heat term:
  W⋅(1061+0.444⋅92)=0.0213⋅(1061+40.848)≈0.0213⋅1101.848≈23.47 Btu/lbW \cdot (1061 + 0.444 \cdot 92) = 0.0213 \cdot (1061 + 40.848) \approx 0.0213 \cdot 1101.848 \approx 23.47 \, \text{Btu/lb}W \cdot (1061 + 0.444 \cdot 92) = 0.0213 \cdot (1061 + 40.848) \approx 0.0213 \cdot 1101.848 \approx 23.47 \, \text{Btu/lb}
  .
• Total enthalpy:
  h=22.08+23.47=45.55 Btu/lbh = 22.08 + 23.47 = 45.55 \, \text{Btu/lb}h = 22.08 + 23.47 = 45.55 \, \text{Btu/lb}
  .

Condition 2: 104°F, Dewpoint 50°F

• T=104°FT = 104°FT = 104°F
  ,
  W=0.0130W = 0.0130W = 0.0130
  .
• Sensible heat:
  0.24⋅104=24.96 Btu/lb0.24 \cdot 104 = 24.96 \, \text{Btu/lb}0.24 \cdot 104 = 24.96 \, \text{Btu/lb}
  .
• Latent heat term:
  W⋅(1061+0.444⋅104)=0.0130⋅(1061+46.176)≈0.0130⋅1107.176≈14.39 Btu/lbW \cdot (1061 + 0.444 \cdot 104) = 0.0130 \cdot (1061 + 46.176) \approx 0.0130 \cdot 1107.176 \approx 14.39 \, \text{Btu/lb}W \cdot (1061 + 0.444 \cdot 104) = 0.0130 \cdot (1061 + 46.176) \approx 0.0130 \cdot 1107.176 \approx 14.39 \, \text{Btu/lb}
  .
• Total enthalpy:
  h=24.96+14.39=39.35 Btu/lbh = 24.96 + 14.39 = 39.35 \, \text{Btu/lb}h = 24.96 + 14.39 = 39.35 \, \text{Btu/lb}
  .

Step 3: Compare Total Heat

• Condition 1: 92°F, dewpoint 75°F → Enthalpy ≈ 45.55 Btu/lb.
• Condition 2: 104°F, dewpoint 50°F → Enthalpy ≈ 39.35 Btu/lb.

ConclusionThe air at 92°F with a dewpoint of 75°F carries more total heat (enthalpy = 45.55 Btu/lb) than the air at 104°F with a dewpoint of 50°F (enthalpy = 39.35 Btu/lb). The higher moisture content (higher dewpoint) in Condition 1 contributes significantly to its latent heat, outweighing the higher sensible heat from the higher temperature in Condition 2.Thus, 92°F with a dewpoint of 75°F has more total heat.

a dew point of 50 is very low, let's take a much more likely scenario.... in August 1918 New York City recorded an all time monthly high of 104 degrees, what was the dew point on that day when the temperature was 104 degrees? Probably somewhere between 65-70 if I would guess.  Compare that to the typical August day we get now, it rarely gets higher than 90-95 in August anymore and this year the highest temperature was only 86 =\

 

[LibertyBell]

On 9/4/2025 at 4:18 PM, donsutherland1 said:

I suspect that human society will need to experience a crisis of a sufficiently large magnitude to break the inertia. Pandemics, wars, economic crises have all been able to shift the bias from inaction to action. But unless a crisis is sufficiently large to destabilize the business-as-usual paradigm and break faith in some future technological miracle that is used as an excuse for delay, it will be difficult to see significant progress. 

I don't believe a single weather event will suffice. One would likely see a degree of proactive reform on a local or regional scale, as opposed to the global scale required. Moreover, the response would likely be focused far more on adaptation than mitigation. After some passage of time, things would drift back toward business-as-usual. One sees a recent example in terms of growing financial system deregulation now that the 2008 financial crisis is fading from memory. 

I suspect the same thing would happen following a regional failed harvest, catastrophic flood, or lethal heat event. What might break the logjam would be recurring failed harvests on a large-scale, significant encroachment of rising seas into numerous major coastal cities, etc. Tragically, the human and social costs would be far higher under such circumstances than with any single event.

It's probably not an existential threat unless you're talking about island nations.

Don, we are moving towards more renewable fuels, but at a slower pace than most would like.  We'll get there eventually. I would mention to guess at least part of the inertia comes from a majority of people actually liking or wanting warmer temperatures in the winter.

 

 

[LibertyBell]

On 9/4/2025 at 5:35 PM, Typhoon Tip said:

I hugely agree here Don... with the rest of it as well, but the bolds in particular.  

We all echo this sentiment in our own ways... I began penning the frustration myself several years ago; human's are unfortunately, despite their various acumen and conceits and lordship over this planet, still quite primitively enslaved to the 5 corporeal senses: sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch.  Unless calamity is directly advertised to their personal being via one of these pathways ... urgency is faked.

Stating the obvious, it drafts from biological evolution perfectly. These sense were evolved to make sense of the reality surrounding them. I've mused before, they are akin in many ways to the USB ports that connect the "biological CPU" to the cosmos (for lack of better end expression).  

Global warming does not appeal to these natural senses.  It moves too seductively slowly. I've heard this compared to the "boiling a frog" syndrome.  Well the fire that heats the pot has got to be our own superior adaptation, then - if we were not so mutable ( naturally) it may have already begun that registry.  Since the adaptation is so effective at blinding us from a problem the solution is clear: To put it plainly and simply, humans have to suffer, first, before they move out the way.  Pain, both physical and mental, needs to occur unceasing - else the moment it lets up, humans are quick to resume.   People have to be in a state where not being a piece of shit is a clear salvation from pain. 

It's ironic that adaptation is so superior among the one species causing the problem.  It uniquely feeds back on perpetuating the damage they cause. Fermi explanation?

Not all species adapt as quickly - little does the lay person know, Earth has entered a mass extinction event.  Climate change is both physically observed and calculable in that causation.  Since the rapidity of the change is also mathematically and empirically proven to be objectively humanity's fault, we have become death, destroyers of worlds.  Sorry, but Gita's poetry is unfortunately apropos.

For the rest ... they'll die gasping through their lessening breaths that it's all a hoax, instrumentation bias perpetuating a conspiracy.

I don't see it as people not believing it's happening, the vast majority of people know it's happening, they just have many other concerns that matter more to them. Or they actually want warmer weather (especially in the winter.)

 

 

[GaWx]

41 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

It's probably not an existential threat unless you're talking about island nations.

Don, we are moving towards more renewable fuels, but at a slower pace than most would like.  We'll get there eventually. I would mention to guess at least part of the inertia comes from a majority of people actually liking or wanting warmer temperatures in the winter.

 

 

Hey Liberty,

 In addition from what I’ve read, extreme cold has killed many more than extreme heat has although that balance could eventually even up and then reverse well into the future if GW continues that long.

 More significantly as I recently posted about, increased CO2 has helped lead to increased crop sizes via 3 main ways:

-longer avg growing seasons

-ability to grow crops in higher latitudes that couldn’t sustain them before

-CO2 fertilization effect since CO2 is like plant food

 So it isn’t all bad by any means and an increased food supply for animals is a biggie and not just for farmers!

[LibertyBell]

9 minutes ago, GaWx said:

Hey Liberty,

 In addition from what I’ve read, extreme cold has killed many more than extreme heat has although that balance could eventually even up and then reverse well into the future if GW continues that long.

 More significantly as I recently posted about, increased CO2 has helped lead to increased crop sizes via 3 main ways:

-longer avg growing seasons

-ability to grow crops in higher latitudes that couldn’t sustain them before

-CO2 fertilization effect since CO2 is like plant food

 So it isn’t all bad by any means and an increased food supply for animals is a biggie and not just for farmers!

Areas in the Arctic will also be opened up to farming and other activities.  Have to look at all sides.

[donsutherland1]

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

It's probably not an existential threat unless you're talking about island nations.

Don, we are moving towards more renewable fuels, but at a slower pace than most would like.  We'll get there eventually. I would mention to guess at least part of the inertia comes from a majority of people actually liking or wanting warmer temperatures in the winter.

 

 

The problem is that oil, gas and coal consumption continues to increase, alongside renewables. This persistent growth locks in higher greenhouse gas emissions, undermining climate targets and amplifying extreme weather, sea-level rise, and ecosystem risks. Science has been clear. Scientists have done their job. Human society, at least its political leaders, have decided to continue burn excessive amounts of coal, gas, and oil despite the known consequences of their choice.

From Statista:

From the IEA:

Global coal demand increased to a new all-time high in 2024 of around 8.8 billion tonnes, up 1.5% from 2023, as rising consumption in China, India, Indonesia and other emerging economies more than offset declines in advanced economies in Europe, North America and northeast Asia. However, several of those trends reversed in the first half of 2025 as demand declined in China and India; by contrast, coal use grew by around 10% in the United States. Even so, global coal demand is still set to increase slightly in 2025, followed by a marginal decline in 2026, bringing demand to just below 2024 levels. 

[LibertyBell]

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

The problem is that oil, gas and coal consumption continues to increase, alongside renewables. This persistent growth locks in higher greenhouse gas emissions, undermining climate targets and amplifying extreme weather, sea-level rise, and ecosystem risks. Science has been clear. Scientists have done their job. Human society, at least its political leaders, have decided to continue burn excessive amounts of coal, gas, and oil despite the known consequences of their choice.

From Statista:

From the IEA:

Global coal demand increased to a new all-time high in 2024 of around 8.8 billion tonnes, up 1.5% from 2023, as rising consumption in China, India, Indonesia and other emerging economies more than offset declines in advanced economies in Europe, North America and northeast Asia. However, several of those trends reversed in the first half of 2025 as demand declined in China and India; by contrast, coal use grew by around 10% in the United States. Even so, global coal demand is still set to increase slightly in 2025, followed by a marginal decline in 2026, bringing demand to just below 2024 levels. 

whats causing the increase in consumption Don?

something that no one likes to talk about but is a fundamental problem with society today is population growth.  I know it's not as much of a problem in Westernized nations but it's most definitely a problem in the Developing world.  The UN estimates the population will stabilize around 11 billion in 2080 and they'd better be right, one of the major reasons for all this usage of energy and resources is the earth simply cannot support a human population more than about 11 billion-- it's the carrying capacity of humans on the planet.

 

[LibertyBell]

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

The problem is that oil, gas and coal consumption continues to increase, alongside renewables. This persistent growth locks in higher greenhouse gas emissions, undermining climate targets and amplifying extreme weather, sea-level rise, and ecosystem risks. Science has been clear. Scientists have done their job. Human society, at least its political leaders, have decided to continue burn excessive amounts of coal, gas, and oil despite the known consequences of their choice.

From Statista:

From the IEA:

Global coal demand increased to a new all-time high in 2024 of around 8.8 billion tonnes, up 1.5% from 2023, as rising consumption in China, India, Indonesia and other emerging economies more than offset declines in advanced economies in Europe, North America and northeast Asia. However, several of those trends reversed in the first half of 2025 as demand declined in China and India; by contrast, coal use grew by around 10% in the United States. Even so, global coal demand is still set to increase slightly in 2025, followed by a marginal decline in 2026, bringing demand to just below 2024 levels. 

the only real dip we had was in 2020 during the pandemic, when not coincidentally, air and water pollution also got much less.

 

[donsutherland1]

10 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

the only real dip we had was in 2020 during the pandemic, when not coincidentally, air and water pollution also got much less.

 

 

10 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

whats causing the increase in consumption Don?

something that no one likes to talk about but is a fundamental problem with society today is population growth.  I know it's not as much of a problem in Westernized nations but it's most definitely a problem in the Developing world.  The UN estimates the population will stabilize around 11 billion in 2080 and they'd better be right, one of the major reasons for all this usage of energy and resources is the earth simply cannot support a human population more than about 11 billion-- it's the carrying capacity of humans on the planet.

 

Global energy demand is rising faster than renewables can scale. Population growth, economic development, and industrial expansion in emerging markets are driving electricity and fuel consumption to record highs. Although solar and wind power generation is growing at double-digit rates, they are adding to energy supply rather than displacing fossil fuels. Political headwinds ranging from a u-turn on climate policy in the United States and retreat from climate ambition in the European Union will likely prolong, if not increase, the excessive consumption of fossil fuels.

Unfortunately, at least for the near-term on account of an absence of political will, macroeconomic shocks such as those resulting from the 2008 financial crisis and 2020-21 COVID pandemic may be the only sources of reductions in fossil fuel burning and greenhouse gas emissions. All indications I have seen so far suggest that COP 30 in Brazil will be another farce. There will be empty words, but no binding commitments to even beginning a phase-out of fossil fuels, much less commitments with credible targets and an enforcement mechanism.

In sum, the world's leaders have committed to bringing the planet to a new climate epoch. That this will mean sacrificing parts of major cities to the seas or parts of Europe to a chill from the breakdown of the AMOC doesn't deter them. The most relevant question concerns whether they have chosen the Mid-Pliocene or the even hotter Eocene. With approximately 3°C warming likely by 2100 on the present course, the Mid-Pliocene might merely be a stop along the way of an longer journey into a hotter climate.

[LibertyBell]

1 hour ago, donsutherland1 said:

 

Global energy demand is rising faster than renewables can scale. Population growth, economic development, and industrial expansion in emerging markets are driving electricity and fuel consumption to record highs. Although solar and wind power generation is growing at double-digit rates, they are adding to energy supply rather than displacing fossil fuels. Political headwinds ranging from a u-turn on climate policy in the United States and retreat from climate ambition in the European Union will likely prolong, if not increase, the excessive consumption of fossil fuels.

Unfortunately, at least for the near-term on account of an absence of political will, macroeconomic shocks such as those resulting from the 2008 financial crisis and 2020-21 COVID pandemic may be the only sources of reductions in fossil fuel burning and greenhouse gas emissions. All indications I have seen so far suggest that COP 30 in Brazil will be another farce. There will be empty words, but no binding commitments to even beginning a phase-out of fossil fuels, much less commitments with credible targets and an enforcement mechanism.

In sum, the world's leaders have committed to bringing the planet to a new climate epoch. That this will mean sacrificing parts of major cities to the seas or parts of Europe to a chill from the breakdown of the AMOC doesn't deter them. The most relevant question concerns whether they have chosen the Mid-Pliocene or the even hotter Eocene. With approximately 3°C warming likely by 2100 on the present course, the Mid-Pliocene might merely be a stop along the way of an longer journey into a hotter climate.

The arguments I see politicians making is we need an all energy source approach to control costs because most people are concerned about energy costs above all else.  I saw this being mentioned in the NJ gubernatorial race.  To be honest, Mikie Sherill is a very poor gubernatorial candidate and if this is the best the democrats can do, no wonder they have such low approval ratings.  If I have to hear *navy helicopter pilot* one more time, I'm going to destroy my TV, she might as well be a network traffic helicopter pilot for all I care and for all it has anything to do with running a state.