Two-time U.S. Olympian Sarah True collapsed while leading in the last 100-degree mile of the Ironman European Championship in Frankfurt, Germany, on Sunday. True, who said she had a seven-minute lead, was carried off the course by four people after nine hours of racing. She later said she could not remember the last two miles of the 140.6-mile competition (2.4-mile swim followed by a 112-mile bike and a marathon) and that the temperature was 38 degrees Celsius (100 Fahrenheit).
A freak hailstorm on Sunday struck Guadalajara, one of Mexico's most populous cities, shocking residents and trapping vehicles in a deluge of ice pellets up to two yards deep.
... And there are still people who don't accept the climate changes...
46C in France, 39C in Germany, Autobahn disintegrating, heat records being broken across Europe from Spain to Poland, and 150cm of hail in Guadalajara in Mexico.
And there are still people who don't accept the climate changes.
In Germany, they wouldn't cancel or postpone the Ironman race. The top athletes were competing in 38C (100F) tempratures in a grueling race, taking overv nine hours.
https://olympics.nbcsports.com/2019/07/01/sarah-true-ironman-collapse/
more photos and article about the ice storm:
https://news.yahoo.com/photos-freak-hail-storm-hits-guadalajara-mexico-131844700.html
"Compared to some other environmental problems, we caught the worst of it in time," Smol explained, "and we had significant legislation, especially in the early 1990s, that really made a big difference in acid rain. That's one of the reasons we don't hear about it as much these days."
hail formation occurs "when strong currents of rising air, known as updrafts, carry droplets of water high enough that they freeze." The higher these droplets get, the cooler the temperature, even during a hot summer.
46C in France, 39C in Germany, Autobahn disintegrating, heat records being broken across Europe from Spain to Poland, and 150cm of hail in Guadalajara in Mexico.
And there are still people who don't accept the climate changes.
Hold on to your hats, the Flat Earthers will be along in a minute ...
Indeed. They will be revealing the global conspiracy by evil scientists to con us into believing that global heating is occurring, in the hope that we'll make them rich by switching to renewable forms of energy, reducing deforestation & increasing tree planting, all to make the Earth more habitable by lizard-alien Overlords of the New World Order. We can only be saved by politicians who get lots of funding from oil companies - our heroes <swoon>
Absolutely, Les. As Chicken Little said, "The sky is falling." I think we should all run for it.
... more photos and article about the ice storm:
https://news.yahoo.com/photos-freak-hail-storm-hits-guadalajara-mexico-131844700.html
... collapsed, cheap roofing. ..flat roofing or pitched...
Global readings taken by the EU-ran Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) showed European temperatures were around 2 deg C hotter than normal, and globally Earth was 0.1 deg C hotter than the previous June record.
The heatwave last week smashed national records for the hottest single day as scorching weather spread across Europe from the Sahara.
It was so intense that temperatures were as much as 10 deg C higher than normal across France, Germany, northern Spain and Italy.
Hold on to your hats, the Flat Earthers will be along in a minute ...
Recently, Twitter user @NotaCelebirty asked the Flat Earth Society if members believe in climate change.
“Certainly,” the society replied, in a post that’s caught the attention of Reddit users in recent days. “It would be nothing short of irresponsible to question something with so much overwhelming evidence behind it, and something that threatens us so directly as a species.”
ST. JOHN'S, N.L. -- The remarkable theft of about 30,000 litres of iceberg water from a vodka company warehouse in Newfoundland has bewildered the firm's owners.
Iceberg Vodka CEO David Meyers said he and his staff were shocked on Monday morning to discover one of 10 tanks of water in the company's Port Union, N.L., warehouse had been drained of its precious contents. Police are now investigating a theft valued between $9,000 and $12,000.
Funny you should bring up Germany. They have been going full retard on wind/solar, while decreasing their nuclear, and their carbon emissions have only being increasing, or , best case, flat lining while having energy prices skyrocket. Meanwhile France, 96+% of electricity from nuclear, has seen their emissions go down with electricity prices a 1/3 of Germany's.Joe, you been behind the times. When there's a freak hot spell it caused by climate change. When there's a freak cold spell it's caused by a weather pattern. Get with it, will ya?
So here is an idea, why dont we actually get on a winning team, and start supporting nuclear and stop our fairy tale addiction of wind/solar.
Wow, wind and solar, it's almost like, the natural problems that exist with them, like, cant be, like, over come since they are natural and inherent to the energy source, like, no matter what we do, like, we will always deal with the intermittency and dilutantancy issues with, like, wind and solar to the point of it costing us a shit ton of money. ???
Also, please explain to us how the freak hail storm in Mexico has anything to do with climate change. Hail storms have been going on forever in the summer, and just because one happens to strike means nothing insofar as climate change. It's like the wild fires in CA; they have nothing to do with climate change and are almost certainly the result of the Smokey Bear Effect.
Joe, you been behind the times. When there's a freak hot spell it caused by climate change. When there's a freak cold spell it's caused by a weather pattern. Get with it, will ya?
Let's hope that New Orleans makes it through the rough storm that is coming in this weekend. The US spent $14B to fix all the pumping stations and other flood control stuff. this should be the first real test.
We've had really bad storms up here in the DC area as well. On Tuesday parts of the area received four inches (10cm) of rain in one hour. There were some pictures of people on their way to work whose cars got stuck in flood waters on some major roads. We had another set of storms yesterday afternoon and they are really quite scary with the wind and driving rain.
Joe, you been behind the times. When there's a freak hot spell it caused by climate change. When there's a freak cold spell it's caused by a weather pattern. Get with it, will ya?
Are you denying the reality of global warming or that man's activity has a dominant effect on it?
The higher lake drained into the lower, directing the entire meltwater flow first east to the Kaskawulsh river, and eventually south toward the Pacific Ocean.
...
Wildlife has changed their routines as well. South of Burwash Landing, Sharon Kabanak stands on a parched piece of land.
“The ducks used to land here all the time. It was kind of like a duck sanctuary,” she says, “but it’s all dry now.”
Are you denying the reality of global warming or that man's activity has a dominant effect on it?the coverage is spotty and not complete. There's an unfairness in how they report it
Cheers,
Bernard
No/yes.
the coverage is spotty and not complete. There's an unfairness in how they report it
For example, since it's warmed up, an area approximately twice the size of the United States has become green with trees and grass.While true, there is also increase in the range of disease carrying insects and invasive plant species.
That provide more habitat for animals and plants to expand their territory and for more farming area for men as well. But you never read about things like this. Warming is always negative. The fact is the earth and its inhabitants have always done better when it's warmer.
No/yes.
For example, since it's warmed up, an area approximately twice the size of the United States has become green with trees and grass.
That provide more habitat for animals and plants to expand their territory and for more farming area for men as well. But you never read about things like this. Warming is always negative. The fact is the earth and its inhabitants have always done better when it's warmer.
No/yes.
OMG, even your government admits it is human-caused.
You must be in a deep state of denial to not even believe the Trump administrations own reports...
There are morons everywhere.
OMG, even your government admits it is human-caused.Every species affects the environment for "good and bad". The measure of whether it's good for a particular species has always been expansion of range and population. So on those criteria, humans are very successful. Sure, there will be pockets of damage that affects particular individuals. But the species as a whole is what's measured.
You must be in a deep state of denial to not even believe the Trump administration's own reports.
Cheers,
Bart
You mean you have proof that their assessment is incorrect, or what do you mean?
While true, there is also increase in the range of disease carrying insects and invasive plant species.Those are minor negatives when comparing to expanding populations of species. You could argue that since the populations are expanding, there will be more deaths as well. But arguing that would be just as illogical and superficial.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This paper highlights the physics of energy to illustrate why there is no possibility that the world is undergoing—or can undergo—a near-term transition to a “new energy economy.”
Among the reasons:
Scientists have yet to discover, and entrepreneurs have yet to invent, anything as remarkable as hydrocarbons in terms of the combination of low-cost, high-energy density, stability, safety, and portability. In practical terms, this means that spending $1 million on utility-scale wind turbines, or solar panels will each, over 30 years of operation, produce about 50 million kilowatt-hours (kWh)—while an equivalent $1 million spent on a shale rig produces enough natural gas over 30 years to generate over 300 million kWh.
Solar technologies have improved greatly and will continue to become cheaper and more efficient. But the era of 10-fold gains is over. The physics boundary for silicon photovoltaic (PV) cells, the Shockley-Queisser Limit, is a maximum conversion of 34% of photons into electrons; the best commercial PV technology today exceeds 26%.
Wind power technology has also improved greatly, but here, too, no 10-fold gains are left. The physics boundary for a wind turbine, the Betz Limit, is a maximum capture of 60% of kinetic energy in moving air; commercial turbines today exceed 40%.
The annual output of Tesla’s Gigafactory, the world’s largest battery factory, could store three minutes’ worth of annual U.S. electricity demand. It would require 1,000 years of production to make enough batteries for two days’ worth of U.S. electricity demand. Meanwhile, 50–100 pounds of materials are mined, moved, and processed for every pound of battery produced.
30 years ago, a United Nations report predicted dire climate consequences for the world: whole islands underwater, sea rise flooding whole coastal areas, blah, blah, blah. None of that happened. Al Gore said a polar cap might melt completely by 2018. Didn't happen. AOC predicts the world will end in 12 years. Wanna bet how that one is going to go?
“We’ve been increasing at a small level every year,” Jane Gilbert said.
Gilbert is the City if Miami’s chief resilience officer. It’s a role meant to literally keep families above water.
The greatest threat now from sea level rise, is flooding especially as Hurricane Season approaches.
“The combination of higher storm surge and more precipitation. That could increase the flood risk,” Gilbert said.
In November 2017, voters approved a $400 Million Miami Forever Bond. Nearly half the funds go toward tackling sea level rise.
The problem is everyone is focused on warming as a negative. No one talks about the positives. If you only examine the negatives and highlight them, sure, people get worried. But we should look at the whole picture. Then decide what should be done if anything. Even costs to change climate have an effect. There's only so much money available. Using it to change the climate removes funding for other important work - cancer research, feeding people, medical care, etc. These have to be computed into the formula before you make a commitment to spend trillions and trillions that might be better spent elsewheres.At least you admit it is happening.
At least you admit it is happening.
Besides the fact that that was not based on scientific evidence, and Al Gore is not a scientist either...
I just don't know what science AOC was smoking for her 12-year prognosis.I believe she said she was joking, but the climate change deniers jumped all over it.
In April, the international president of the Association of Flight Attendants wrote a commentary on the Vox website noting an association between climate change and an increase in the frequency and intensity of air turbulence.
"Research indicates that rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere cause disruptions to the jet streams and create dangerous wind shears that greatly increase turbulence, especially at moderate latitudes where the majority of air travel occurs," Sara Nelson wrote. "For flight attendants and passengers alike, that dangerous, shaky feeling in midair comes from air currents shifting."
She added that clear-air turbulence, also known as CAT, is the most dangerous.
"It cannot be seen and is virtually undetectable with current technology," Nelson noted. "One second, you’re cruising smoothly; the next, passengers and crew are being thrown around the cabin. For flight attendants, who are often in the aisles, these incidents pose a serious occupational risk.""
I believe she said she was joking...
If you accept that everything she says is a joke, than I agree with you.Not that I am a fan, but I do think some of what she says is to bait the right, which just can't resist. They would be better off ignoring her.
"the international president of the Association of Flight Attendants"
You mean an association of glorified bartenders, just like AOC, is engaged in a scientific analysis of CO2 impact? Good Lord!
You mean you have proof that their assessment is incorrect, or what do you mean?
Cheers,
Bart
As a matter of fact, on my last flight to Miami, I also experienced a bad case of air-turbulence. Just to be on safe side, next time I'm driving.
As a matter of fact, on my last flight to Miami, I also experienced a bad case of air-turbulence...
At least you admit it is happening.I haven't admitted anything. What it seems like is that the climate is warming up. But I don't know if that's just a perturbation that will reverse itself in ten or a hundred years or that is increasing for the Long Haul. But whether it's being caused by nature or man or both again I don't know. What I do know and I've expressed it in our last thread a couple years ago over and over again, is that we're not looking at warming as a balance of good and bad. We're focusing on only the bed which is a big mistake. We have to be honest about what's going on and look at the good as well otherwise we're going to make poor decisions on what to do one way or the other.
You sure it wasn't the pre-flight visit to a Taco Bell?Nah, I'm sticking to clean, good quality food.
The advantages of ducks for farmers such as Akter are several. Chickens catch infections much more easily than ducks do when they get wet, too hot, or too cold.
The Haors, the wetlands where Akter lives, used to have regular rains, says Miganur Rahman, a BRAC staffer, but now precipitation is unpredictable. There are periods of both unexpected flooding and drought. This has a big impact on paddy farmers: When the rain comes too early, they cannot harvest their crops, and lose their investment.
... farmers in Bangladesh are adapting to climate change...
To survive in a wetter world, farmers in Bangladesh are adapting to climate change, and are switching from raising chickens to ducks.Man adapts and will learn to deal with climate change as they always have. So will other species. The polar bear will turn brown as it again forages on land for food. etc.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/07/bangladesh-climate-change-floods-ducks/593581/
My white Prius needs washing every day.
But it gets washed about once a year. :(
Man adapts and will learn to deal with climate change as they always have. So will other species. The polar bear will turn brown as it again forages on land for food. etc.
No; they become extinct.Species adapt as the weather shifts. If the area expands, their range expands. If the area shrinks, they move on or adapt.
Rob
No; they become extinct.
No; they become extinct.
Rob
The polar bears survived the Medieval Warm Period, 900-1300 AD, which was warmer than today.
Some do, some don't. Look at the history of the peppered moth.
Jeremy
Species adapt as the weather shifts. If the area expands, their range expands. If the area shrinks, they move on or adapt.
Some adapt in other creating new species and modifications of existing species.
Do you really think man is going to disappear because of weather changes? There will be inconveniences in local areas. People will farm ducks instead of chickens. But the world will go on.
li
Yes, we agree: there will be inconveniences. I love understatement.
Rob
li
Cutting back on fossil fuels will also cause inconveniences. Cheap fuel like coal and gas allows people to keep warm. Without that fuel they freeze to death. It's the other side of the coin that you have to pay attention to also.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png/1280px-2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png)
Not quite, it's globally warmer today, and even more in the Northern hemisphere.
And some more info:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY4Yecsx_-s
Cheers,
Bart
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png/1280px-2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png)
Not quite, it's globally warmer today, and even more in the Northern hemisphere.
And some more info:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY4Yecsx_-s
Cheers,
Bart
Just like map, reading a graph without a key is pretty annoying. Could you please tell us with the different colors represent?
Hi Joe,
Reconstructions from different sources/locations in the Northern Hemisphere, tree-rings, sediment layers, altitudes with certain seeds, isotopes, etc.. The black line is actual recordings with instrumentation (thermometers).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
Cheers,
Bart
Hi Joe,
Reconstructions from different sources/locations in the Northern Hemisphere, tree-rings, sediment layers, altitudes with certain seeds, isotopes, etc.. The black line is actual recordings with instrumentation (thermometers).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
Cheers,
Bart
The black line (absolute temperature) is what counts.
Les, Warm is good. Isn't it? After all, you're Canadian. Wouldn't you like a little warmer winters? You wouldn't have to vacation in FLorida which is suppose to be going under anyway. You'll be able to catch some sun rays on the St. Lawrence and save all that air fare money.
“We’re warning residents that the mosquitos are on their way and [some] have arrived this past weekend,” said Russell Eirich, Regina city’s senior program manager for forestry, pest control, and horticulture.
“For the Sunday night-only counts, we were at 106 mosquitos per trap. Our average historically, if you want to put that into perspective, is approximately 70.”
Right now, we are having another hot summer here. The air and water temperatures in southern Ontario are now pretty much the same as in southern Florida. For this coming week, the Toronto forecast calls for up to 32C (90F) temperatures, with Humidex reaching 43C (109F). Too hot for me and all dogs in our neighbourhood.
So back to your opening comment, too much of warmth is sometimes not so good.
We take heat for granted in the US because of the massive amount of air conditioning in homes and offices that keep things tolerable. The vast number of people in the world do not have such a 'luxury' including much of Western Europe. The last bad heat wave in Europe (ten years ago???) saw over 100 deaths in Paris IIRC.
- More Cities in several regions, like in India, are becoming too hot for human life.
Cheers,
Bart
We take heat for granted in the US because of the massive amount of air conditioning in homes and offices that keep things tolerable. The vast number of people in the world do not have such a 'luxury' including much of Western Europe. The last bad heat wave in Europe (ten years ago???) saw over 100 deaths in Paris IIRC.
More people die from cold than heat. A few extra degrees in winter will save lives. There are positives as well as negatives from warming.And it's not just that on average it's getting warmer, it's the relatively extreme rate of increase that's unprecedented. Nature cannot adapt fast enough, so ecosystems will suffer casualties. Human behavior is one of the main reasons that ecosystems are spiraling out of control.
- Average global temperatures increases are just that, Average. The extremes will become more extreme, and it will heat-up faster on the Northern hemisphere with more landmass.
- Statistics from the USA indicate that at the current rate of warming, 1% more deaths are expected/reported due to heat-stress in the USA .
- More Cities in several regions, like in India, are becoming too hot for human life.
- More regions are falling victim to flooding due to the expanding watervolumes and heavier local downpours.
- More periods of extreme drought will cause failed harvests.
- In my country we are suffering from exotic insect infestations (and we're situated at a latitude similar to The Canada/USA border), there are not enough natural enemies for those insects. Currently, we have a tripling of the number of Oak Procession-Caterpillars (Thaumethopea processionea) in 1 year, and there are not enough resources to clean the environment with mechanical means. They cause extreme irritation that can result in anaphylactic shock. Another version that lives on pine trees is approaching fast.
- Mosquitoes have 'hatched' 1 month earlier than usual, and we are at the verge of losing the battle with the Asian tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus) which carries the West Nile virus and Dengue fever, which is likely to permanently settle in my country (without natural enemies it will cause explosive growth of those mosquitoes). Malaria mosquitoes are inbound as well.
Cheers,
Bart
Yes, air-conditioning can mitigate. But what if the power supply fails? And if the power is generated with fossil fuels, it will only add to the problem.
It also takes a different style of housing/building construction (better isolation, smaller windows, and 'green' roofs) and city planning (more room for trees and vegetation, to improve evapotranspiration and create more shadow areas, and rainwater storage facilities). Urban Heat Island effects have a significant impact on local heat-stress conditions. It easily exceeds an additional temperature rise of 2- 5 degrees Celsius locally (or more near the dark surface of roads, so children and small animals/pets are even more affected).
Cheers,
Bart
Hot spikes may be worse. But cold cumulative appears worse. In any case, take your pick. Here's an article that compares differing conclusions from US Federal Agencies of which is worse. Just like climate change itself, the data and analysis are not so clear cut.
- We take heat for granted in the US because of the massive amount of air conditioning in homes and offices that keep things tolerable. The vast number of people in the world do not have such a 'luxury' including much of Western Europe. The last bad heat wave in Europe (ten years ago???) saw over 100 deaths in Paris IIRC.
[/l][/l]
Obviously we all should go back to hunting and gathering. That would eliminate the supposed cause of the problem.I love campfires. Would that be OK? Can we roast marshmallows?
More people die from cold than heat. A few extra degrees in winter will save lives. There are positives as well as negatives from warming.
The first seriously scary heat wave of the Northern Hemisphere’s summer is a good time to remember that extreme heat in the U.S. already causes more deaths than any other severe weather event, killing an estimated 1,500 people each year. And the future looks dangerously hotter: The United Nations warned last November that global temperatures are on track to rise by at least 3 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, soaring past the two-degree goal that nearly 200 cities signed onto in 2015 as part of the Paris Agreement.
With funding from the Union of Concerned Scientists, researchers modeled the relationship between mortality and temperature rise in 15 U.S. cities across various regions. They estimate that as many as 1,980 deaths per city could be avoided in a 1-in-30-year heat wave event if global heating is limited to 2 degrees Celsius, rather than 3 degrees. If temperature rise is limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius, the potential number of lives saved jumps up to as much as 2,716.
If the world hits that 3-degree threshold, once-rare heat cataclysms would become routine. An event as deadly as the three-day 1995 heat wave in Chicago, which killed 739 people—many of them elderly, isolated, and living on fixed incomes—could happen once every 1.4 years.
Yes, air-conditioning can mitigate. But what if the power supply fails? And if the power is generated with fossil fuels, it will only add to the problem.
It also takes a different style of housing/building construction (better isolation, smaller windows, and 'green' roofs) and city planning (more room for trees and vegetation, to improve evapotranspiration and create more shadow areas, and rainwater storage facilities). Urban Heat Island effects have a significant impact on local heat-stress conditions. It easily exceeds an additional temperature rise of 2- 5 degrees Celsius locally (or more near the dark surface of roads, so children and small animals/pets are even more affected).
Cheers,
Bart
Not according to my sources. During the heat wave in July 2018 in Quebec, hospitalizations almost doubled and deaths outside hospitals more than tripled. Public-health officials recorded almost 6,000 ambulance calls and 66 heat-related deaths. And it can get even worse.
As Alan Goldhammer pointed out, most households in central and northern Europe do not have air-conditioning and the houses and apartments were not built for it, so if a heat wave comes, there is not much people can do.
https://www.citylab.com/environment/2019/06/extreme-heat-wave-data-deaths-health-risks-climate-change/590941/ (https://www.citylab.com/environment/2019/06/extreme-heat-wave-data-deaths-health-risks-climate-change/590941/)
Wouldn't smaller windows increase the need for more interior lights and electricity, thus adding to the problem? I like being able to not have to turn on any lights during the day. Granted my interiors are all painted white, but having large bay windows really helps.LED lighting is a game changer in terms of electric usage. Windows are very energy efficient. Some years ago we replaced all the windows in our 1955 built house and saved 20% on both heating and AC costs.
Now insofar as the modern move in housing and building construction, it is a double edged sword that can have some pretty bad side effects. For starters, since buildings are made so much more air tight then before, indoor air quality is worse then what it use to be. It is even the case that with modern office buildings you can no longer open the windows. Even though we have come a long way in HVAC technology, it still does not replace a nice breeze bringing in fresh air.Yes, this is a problem with office buildings
On top of that, tighter built houses require a significantly higher build quality, which not all contractors will master, since moisture gets trapped inside the walls and does not evaporate out. This will lead to rot in many cases, and, even with properly built homes, it can be difficult to avoid. In my house, which was built in the 1920s, my joists sit directly in masonry joist pockets on top of the brick. Having wood on brick/stone goes against all logic since brick/stone releases moisture, causing rot. But since my house is not completely air tight, this moisture dries out before rot can set in and my near 100 year old joists are all in great condition.I think Tyvek which is used in most construction as the outer sheet is permeable and allows moisture to escape.
Wouldn't smaller windows increase the need for more interior lights and electricity, thus adding to the problem? I like being able to not have to turn on any lights during the day. Granted my interiors are all painted white, but having large bay windows really helps.Joe Your house renovation is really making you an expert at these things. I live in a ten year old home. My utility bills are really low even though I keep the temperature set at 72 degrees year round. There's 6 inch insulation in all the exteriors walls and above the ceiling in the attic. All window are double pane. Right now I opened the doors and windows to air out the place. I wait until my wife leaves because she doesn;t like it because pollen gets in. But you got to air out rooms from odors and other pollutants.
Now insofar as the modern move in housing and building construction, it is a double edged sword that can have some pretty bad side effects. For starters, since buildings are made so much more air tight then before, indoor air quality is worse then what it use to be. It is even the case that with modern office buildings you can no longer open the windows. Even though we have come a long way in HVAC technology, it still does not replace a nice breeze bringing in fresh air.
On top of that, tighter built houses require a significantly higher build quality, which not all contractors will master, since moisture gets trapped inside the walls and does not evaporate out. This will lead to rot in many cases, and, even with properly built homes, it can be difficult to avoid. In my house, which was built in the 1920s, my joists sit directly in masonry joist pockets on top of the brick. Having wood on brick/stone goes against all logic since brick/stone releases moisture, causing rot. But since my house is not completely air tight, this moisture dries out before rot can set in and my near 100 year old joists are all in great condition.
Masonry joist pockets are now against code due to how air tight houses are required to be built today. So work arounds are devised, such as using treated rim joists sitting on the foundation with metal joist hangers. But even here, treated wood eventually rots and replacing a rim joist is no easy task.
Insulation too can have bad effects on facades, especially masonry ones. Although most houses no long use masonry baring walls, many have masonry facades, which absorb moisture. Problem though is that moisture trapped in stone during a freeze thaw cycle will cause micro cracks in the masonry material, leading to failure over time. Fortunately, heated bricks/stones hold less moisture, so if your house is not insulated, you have nothing to worry about since the heat will force the moisture out. However, unless you have closed cell spray foam directly on the inner side of the masonry wall, insulating an exterior masonry wall will lead to eventual failure. You cant prevent moisture from being drawn into the wall from convection currents that naturally form during the winter, even with a moisture barrier. Moisture barriers only protect from moisture dispersion, which only accounts for about 5% of moisture entering into the interior wall.
(FYI, if you have masonry baring wall, never insulate them except with closed-cell foam.)
I feel like with some of these modern building techniques, we are getting more efficient heating and cooling at the expense of the need to preform major maintenance projects more often. On top of that, many contractors are just being trained in modern techniques and materials, some of which can not be used with older houses. For instance, my foundation is schist stone, which is a softer stone. Modern mortar mixes use a 3:1 ratio of sand to Portland cement and this cures to being harder then schist, and many pre-WW1 stone. You never want the mortar to be harder then the stone, since it will cause the wall to eventually fail, so you need to use a more dilute mix.
Although many masons know that mortars need to be softer then the stone, nearly all available modern stones/bricks are harder then the standard mortar mix. So in many cases, it never crosses their minds to use a more dilute mix if they are working on an older house.
Joe Your house renovation is really making you an expert at these things. I live in a ten year old home. My utility bills are really low even though I keep the temperature set at 72 degrees year round. There's 6 inch insulation in all the exteriors walls and above the ceiling in the attic. All window are double pane. Right now I opened the doors and windows to air out the place. I wait until my wife leaves because she doesn;t like it because pollen gets in. But you got to air out rooms from odors and other pollutants.
Just a clarification because I worked in the HVAC industry. Office building systems are required to have minimum fresh air intakes for ventilation, let's say 10-15%. The rest is recirculated to keep energy costs down. The CFM is calculated by code against the full system supply that's based on a number of changes per hour for the square feet being heated and cooled. Besides health, you don't want workers falling asleep from 100% stale, recirculated air. I'm not familiar with home construction whether there are fresh air requirements. Frankly, I don;t even know what's in my house except that its sealed very well and I love my utility bills.
Your post stated from the article:
"With funding from the Union of Concerned Scientists, researchers modeled the relationship between mortality and temperature rise in 15 U.S. cities across various regions. They estimate that as many as 1,980 deaths per city could be avoided in a 1-in-30-year heat wave event if global heating is limited to 2 degrees Celsius, rather than 3 degrees. If temperature rise is limited to 1.5 degrees Celsius, the potential number of lives saved jumps up to as much as 2,716."
How can a model be so accurate for something that happens once in 30 years trying to estimate deaths based on a one degree difference? In any case, where's the model for a 1 in 30 year freeze snap that will not occur because it's warmer due to climate change. My point is that scientists are always looking at the negatives for warming, never the positives. So the public only hears part of the news making false analysis and making bad recommendations on what to do. These scientists just cherry picked the data and the study to show bad things. That's not good science.
As someone who lived in hot NYC all my life, I've taken air conditioning for granted, assuming everyone has it. I was surprised that even going to upper NY or much of New England, that many, maybe most homes are not air conditioned. When my wife and I would look for a house to rent for a week, let's say in the Adirondack Mountains, that was one of the first questions we asked, after"do you accept dogs". Amazing how many people would say it doesn't get that hot. And you don;t need air conditioning only to find when you go, it's sweltering without AC. I guess people get use to it. We never did.
- We take heat for granted in the US because of the massive amount of air conditioning in homes and offices that keep things tolerable. The vast number of people in the world do not have such a 'luxury' including much of Western Europe. The last bad heat wave in Europe (ten years ago???) saw over 100 deaths in Paris IIRC.
[/l][/l]
JOffice building systems are required to have minimum fresh air intakes for ventilation, let's say 10-15%. The rest is recirculated to keep energy costs down. The CFM is calculated by code against the full system supply that's based on a number of changes per hour for the square feet being heated and cooled. Besides health, you don't want workers falling asleep from 100% stale, recirculated air. I'm not familiar with home construction whether there are fresh air requirements. Frankly, I don;t even know what's in my house except that its sealed very well and I love my utility bills.Building codes differ by state and sometimes even locality. My late father was a structural engineer and co-founder of an architectural firm in San Diego. though most of their work was in San Diego county they did have occasional jobs outside California and codes were different, particularly in areas where there are no earthquake threats.
Alan, that model might be hypothetical, but the quoted Montreal death reports are real.
And if you couple an extreme weather event (heat or freeze) with a hypothetical power outage, the results could be catastrophic. A few winters ago, we had here a storm combined with freezing rain, and many power lines went down. Although my gas furnace runs on gas, it needs the electricity for its thermostat, so I was shivering for two days. Fortunately, in the two days the indoor temperature didn't go down below 40F, so the water pipes didn't burst. However, some homes didn't get their power back for 3-5 days, so there was all kinds of damage (not including fallen trees). I worry equally about the extreme cold snaps as about the heat waves.
As someone who lived in hot NYC all my life, I've taken air conditioning for granted, assuming everyone has it. I was surprised that even going to upper NY or much of New England, that many, maybe most homes are not air conditioned. When my wife and I would look for a house to rent for a week, let's say in the Adirondack Mountains, that was one of the first questions we asked, after"do you accept dogs". Amazing how many people would say it doesn't get that hot. And you don;t need air conditioning only to find when you go, it's sweltering without AC. I guess people get use to it. We never did.I grew up in San Diego and we never had air conditioning. The only times temperatures got hot was in September when we would get Santa Ana dessert winds. Temps would go up to 100F or more but it was dry heat with no humidity. Only when I moved to Indiana for grad school did I live with AC. I really don't like AC other than to take the humidity out of the house and we keep the thermostat set at 78F which is fine with me.
In any case, I wouldn't knock air conditioning. It's made FLorida what it is which would still be swamp without it. Who'd want to live there to sweat? Where would Canadians go in the winter? :)
Les, I'm sure they're real. But they only analyzed warm snaps. A fair assessment would be to analyze cold snaps as well and what a warming trend will do at that end of the scale. Having only half the data distorts the results.LOL, I did the same calculation. We used to have regular power outages because of tree branches snapping power lines. The local utility was forced by the county to engage in an aggressive tree trimming plan and this seems to have worked. We went for three years before having a 2 hour outage last Thursday because of a bad storm with high winds. We would also have problems in the winter because of ice storms also snapping off branches. One year we were out of power for four days in February. It was weird because right after the ice storm a warm front came through and temperatures outside during the daylight hour were higher than those in the house. We keep the house at 68F during the winter and after the power went off (furnace is gas forced air and requires electricity for the blower motor) the house went down to about 53F rather quickly. We sent the girls over to friends who had power so they would not complain and we just added an extra quilt to the bet. I kept simmering pots of water on the stove in the kitchen to keep it somewhat warm.
When Hurricane Sandy hit, power was lost in my community (before i moved here) for a week. Afterwards, a lot of people installed electric generators that are connected to the natural gas lines for fuel to run. I didn't think it was worth it. Plus you have to deal with regular testing and maintenance, just another problem to deal with. I figure that the worse that could happen is we lose the food in the freezer and refrigerator. It would cost a lot less to restock than pay for a generator. I suppose I could run an extension cord to my next door neighbor's unit. :)
Les, I'm sure they're real. But they only analyzed warm snaps. A fair assessment would be to analyze cold snaps as well and what a warming trend will do at that end of the scale. Having only half the data distorts the results.
Building codes differ by state and sometimes even locality. My late father was a structural engineer and co-founder of an architectural firm in San Diego. though most of their work was in San Diego county they did have occasional jobs outside California and codes were different, particularly in areas where there are no earthquake threats.Earthquakes have nothing to do with ventilation requirements. I've done HVAC control since 1969, in NYC. Codes for HVAC systems always required ventilation in ducted systems. Even then. The idea that an office building with sealed windows would not have ventilation requirements in other localities isn't true. Air Quality standards have been in effect for at least 40 years, Codes follow at a minimum American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) ventilation standards. No mechanical engineer (licensed Professional Engineer PE) would write a specification that does not include ventilation and air quality to meet ASHRAE standards.
Home construction differs in that heating and cooling have installation codes at least in Maryland. We have to have an inspection done each time we did a full heating/cooling replacement. AC compressors do not bring any fresh air into the house and even with it running one day with all the windows and doors closed the house will get quite stale. Fortunately, most mornings so far this summer are relatively nice so we can open windows and doors to air the house out. Most years our utility bill for AC is higher than that for heating. It costs more to cool than heat even with modern day units.
I grew up in San Diego and we never had air conditioning. The only times temperatures got hot was in September when we would get Santa Ana dessert winds. Temps would go up to 100F or more but it was dry heat with no humidity. Only when I moved to Indiana for grad school did I live with AC. I really don't like AC other than to take the humidity out of the house and we keep the thermostat set at 78F which is fine with me.Never been to San Diego. But my cousin lived there and loved it. The weather is great I understand.
I've been to Florida a number of times and would never want to live there.
LOL, I did the same calculation. We used to have regular power outages because of tree branches snapping power lines. The local utility was forced by the county to engage in an aggressive tree trimming plan and this seems to have worked. We went for three years before having a 2 hour outage last Thursday because of a bad storm with high winds. We would also have problems in the winter because of ice storms also snapping off branches. One year we were out of power for four days in February. It was weird because right after the ice storm a warm front came through and temperatures outside during the daylight hour were higher than those in the house. We keep the house at 68F during the winter and after the power went off (furnace is gas forced air and requires electricity for the blower motor) the house went down to about 53F rather quickly. We sent the girls over to friends who had power so they would not complain and we just added an extra quilt to the bet. I kept simmering pots of water on the stove in the kitchen to keep it somewhat warm.We lost power for 4 hours last week when a transformer in our community burned out. My wife goes nuts insisting on an emergency generator. So I say, do you want a generator or do you want to go on a cruise? That quiets her down.
I never felt the need to get one of the generators you mention. Up front costs and maintenance for maybe two days a year isn't worth it.
We lost power for 4 hours last week when a transformer in our community burned out. My wife goes nuts insisting on an emergency generator. So I say, do you want a generator or do you want to go on a cruise? That quiets her down.
The summer heat wave of 2003 was made responsible for over 70,000 fatalities in Europe....The last bad heat wave in Europe (ten years ago???) saw over 100 deaths in Paris IIRC.
By the way, the compressor outside your home is to circulate the liquid Freon or Puron refrigerant through coolant piping. It doesn't circulate air at all. That's the function of the HVAC system fan in the duct. Unless you actually look at the ductwork to check if there's a fresh air intake, you really don;t know what your system is doing. You could have fresh air or not.Perhaps new builds might have an air duct to the outside but I doubt it. All the AC units I'm familiar with do exactly what you describe above. Ours uses the furnace blower to push the cold air through the house. The furnace burner (new Lenox model, 3 years old) has a sealed burner in the heat exchanger and cold air for combustion comes from the outside and is exhausted back out of the house. One of the reasons they now require a carbon monoxide detector is that there is no fresh air coming into the house and if the heat exchanger has a leak you will get CO in the house which is life threatening. They installed one on our upper level when the furnace was installed. they also put some ventilation grates on the door to the laundry room where the furnace is located. That was also a requirement.
We lost power for 4 hours last week when a transformer in our community burned out. My wife goes nuts insisting on an emergency generator. So I say, do you want a generator or do you want to go on a cruise? That quiets her down.I tell my wife to go out and take a drive in her air conditioned car.
Do you actually take her or just threaten? You could not pay me enough to make me go on a cruise. Had he the desire, then perhaps Mr Gates might.We went on a cruise out of NYC a few months ago to the Bahamas and FLorida. The NYC port is only a cab drive away from us. Very convenient. No planes. Just drop your bag off and relax. We had a problem on our last cruise. First the thing tilted in a 100 knot wind. I thought were capsizing. It was pretty scary. Then my wife's clothes somehow got wet in the luggage. So they gave us $100 and a special pass to get off the ship when we got home. It took only 20 minutes from our cabin, off the ship, collecting our bags, and through US customs to our cab. That was sweet.
No, I love yachts, the bigger the better; it's not the boats nor the seas.
Perhaps new builds might have an air duct to the outside but I doubt it. All the AC units I'm familiar with do exactly what you describe above. Ours uses the furnace blower to push the cold air through the house. The furnace burner (new Lenox model, 3 years old) has a sealed burner in the heat exchanger and cold air for combustion comes from the outside and is exhausted back out of the house. One of the reasons they now require a carbon monoxide detector is that there is no fresh air coming into the house and if the heat exchanger has a leak you will get CO in the house which is life threatening. They installed one on our upper level when the furnace was installed. they also put some ventilation grates on the door to the laundry room where the furnace is located. That was also a requirement.
Perhaps new builds might have an air duct to the outside but I doubt it. All the AC units I'm familiar with do exactly what you describe above. Ours uses the furnace blower to push the cold air through the house. The furnace burner (new Lenox model, 3 years old) has a sealed burner in the heat exchanger and cold air for combustion comes from the outside and is exhausted back out of the house.
Our house, which was constructed in 2013 and is also in Montgomery County, Maryland, has a fresh air intake for each of its two ventilating systems. I was under the impression that was a requirement of the version of the building code that was in effect when our permits were issued, but in any event our construction manager told me an outdoor supply was necessary because the enclosure was so airtight. (Technically, each state in the United States maintains its own building code, but my understanding is that the basic requirements are essentially the same everywhere in the country and the differences involve local additions based on particular regional conditions: e.g., earthquake resistance in areas near fault lines.)
My wife has relatives in Singapore. Their house has air conditioning, but they only use it when they have foreign guests. Office buildings, shopping malls, hotels, and other commercial spaces in Singapore are air-conditioned, so it's not as though the family finds it unusual or unpleasant; they just don't seem to feel the need for it at home.
My sister and her husband live in Frankfurt, Germany. During the recent severe heat wave, I asked her whether they would now consider retrofitting some form of air conditioning, and she said all they planned to do was install some exterior blinds on some second floor windows and interior blinds in a bathroom that gets a lot of sun.
Of course, what we in the Washington area would consider normal mid-summer temperatures have been quite rare in central Europe until recently. On the other hand, Singapore is as hot and humid all year as Washington is in July and August. Expectations are a major factor in determining how people react to weather. People in London and Vancouver seem awfully blasé about the rain from my perspective.
Our house, which was constructed in 2013 and is also in Montgomery County, Maryland, has a fresh air intake for each of its two ventilating systems. I was under the impression that was a requirement of the version of the building code that was in effect when our permits were issued, but in any event our construction manager told me an outdoor supply was necessary because the enclosure was so airtight. (Technically, each state in the United States maintains its own building code, but my understanding is that the basic requirements are essentially the same everywhere in the country and the differences involve local additions based on particular regional conditions: e.g., earthquake resistance in areas near fault lines.)One learns something new every day. I did a simple Google search on 'fresh air intake hvac' and came up with multiple hits showing different approaches. I didn't see anything mentioning building code but perhaps it might be a local requirement. Our attic is ventilated at both ends so there is fresh air up there (albeit hot in the summer and cold in the winter). We have an antique AC compressor up in the attic that was separate to the heating and AC system we have now. That compressor failed at some point during the previous owner's occupancy. We have the old vent system for the AC in the ceilings of some of the rooms and the attic air can come in through that route. I would certainly want a fresh air intake system in a new house if I had one as they are so air tight.
One learns something new every day. I did a simple Google search on 'fresh air intake hvac' and came up with multiple hits showing different approaches. I didn't see anything mentioning building code but perhaps it might be a local requirement. Our attic is ventilated at both ends so there is fresh air up there (albeit hot in the summer and cold in the winter). We have an antique AC compressor up in the attic that was separate to the heating and AC system we have now. That compressor failed at some point during the previous owner's occupancy. We have the old vent system for the AC in the ceilings of some of the rooms and the attic air can come in through that route. I would certainly want a fresh air intake system in a new house if I had one as they are so air tight.New building codes usually are "grandfathered". They don't apply to existing installations. They only affect new construction and renovations. If you're doing a renovation, be careful to follow codes. Otherwise, you could have big problems when you try to sell your house. The prospective buyer's home inspector will probably pick up the violations. Then you'll have to correct them before you can sell the house. If the renovation requires a building inspection, pay for it and have it done when you do the work. If work requires a license, ie. electrical, underground fuel oil tanks removals, plumbing, etc. make sure it gets filed by a licensed contractor. If the local building department didn't sign it off, you'll have to inspect anyway and open yourself up to problems of non-compliance holding up the sales and costing a lot of money after the fact to correct. It's also nice to know that the work was done correctly.
New building codes usually are "grandfathered". They don't apply to existing installations. They only affect new construction and renovations. If you're doing a renovation, be careful to follow codes. Otherwise, you could have big problems when you try to sell your house. The prospective buyer's home inspector will probably pick up the violations. Then you'll have to correct them before you can sell the house. If the renovation requires a building inspection, pay for it and have it done when you do the work. If work requires a license, ie. electrical, underground fuel oil tanks removals, plumbing, etc. make sure it gets filed by a licensed contractor. If the local building department didn't sign it off, you'll have to inspect anyway and open yourself up to problems of non-compliance holding up the sales and costing a lot of money after the fact to correct. It's also nice to know that the work was done correctly.Our 1955 home is a tear down. I won't even bother listing it as nobody these days wants a 1955 split level. I get two letters a month from builders who will pay me straight cash (no broker fee) for the home and lot. We have 13K square feet inside the DC beltway, walking distance to NIH and Walter Reed Naval Medical Center where there is also a subway stop to downtown.
Also, filed the work with the local building department before it's done. That will require a licensed contractor at a minimum or PE depending on the work and locality. Work has to be filed for the inspection to be scheduled. It may be simple, such as the licensed electrician filing a list of the fixtures he's going to install. No drawing may be required. It cost me only $75 extra paid to the bldg's department when my electrician installed high hat lights throughout the house, extra power line, switches, dimmers, and a few other things. When he was done, I called the inspector who took 20 minutes to inspect. There was actually a change required. The electrician installed a non-childproof tamper resistant receptacle that's not allowed any longer. It's this kind of thing that protects you while you're living in the house and when you want to sell it.We had our kitchen redone about 12 years ago. No major build out other than removing all the old cabinets, counters, appliances and floor. We still had to have the electrical line to the kitchen upgraded and a new breaker box installed to meet the code. It was all pretty painless and the paperwork was all handled by the remodeling company.
We went on a cruise out of NYC a few months ago to the Bahamas and FLorida. The NYC port is only a cab drive away from us. Very convenient. No planes. Just drop your bag off and relax. We had a problem on our last cruise. First the thing tilted in a 100 knot wind. I thought were capsizing. It was pretty scary. Then my wife's clothes somehow got wet in the luggage. So they gave us $100 and a special pass to get off the ship when we got home. It took only 20 minutes from our cabin, off the ship, collecting our bags, and through US customs to our cab. That was sweet.
Here's someone's video of the ship tilting. Come to think of it, maybe we'll take a bus next time.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/05/us/norwegian-cruise-line-ship-passengers-hurt/index.html
Cruises, in the sense you mean, are the province of widows and widowers looking to catch and get caught. The fact of communal dining tables, whether the Captain's or not, fills me with horror (in fact, his would be worse because there would be the expectation of gratitude for the honour) as does the thought of sitting at bars and being nice to total strangers; I'd rather go feed the friendly white horse I chat to every day - more or less. She has no conversation, but beautiful eyes. The eyes are the key to the soul, which tells anybody who's looked that cats don't have one any more than lions, tigers, sheep or goats.
Gorillas have one, but boy, are they pissed off! They would also be heavy drinkers, given the chance. It's all there in the eyes, no need for crystal balls or stethoscopes.
I can understand Germans. Because of their switchover to solar and wind (40% of their energy), the cost of electricity has skyrocketed so it's 2 1/2 times the cost of what we spend here in the USA per KWH. They still produce about the same amount of CO2 however as they did before. Can you imagine what their costs for electricity would be if they installed more AC's?
I can understand Germans. Because of their switchover to solar and wind (40% of their energy), the cost of electricity has skyrocketed so it's 2 1/2 times the cost of what we spend here in the USA per KWH.
If that's the case (for which you've shown no evidence), then it may have to do with the fact that the cost of fossil fuel is subsidized and/or doesn't reflect the real cost to society.Why should I believe your claim. You've shown no evidence.
Cheers,
Bart
The beetles are back, but not with the cool hair and rocking music that we would be okay with (side note: as if the Beatles ever truly left). They are back in droves of shiny, green-eating, reproducing machines, also known as the Japanese Beetle. If you have never experienced these small beetles, you can count yourself among the lucky few, as their spread seems to be getting greater throughout the Niagara Region each year. These little guys will skeletonize leaves in the blink of an eye and can make their way through entire bushes in just a matter of days.
Like the name implies, the Japanese Beetle is native to Japan. They were imported into the United States supposedly in 1916 and have slowly spread throughout North America. The Japanese Beetle is about 1 cm long with a shiny, metallic-green body and bronze-colored outer wings. It begins feeding on plants in June/July. They are attracted to sweet smelling plants, which will become apparent as you see them on plants such as roses, lindens and grapes. It eats the tender tissues between the veins of leaves until all that’s left of the leaves are the brown, skeletal remains.
Another plague encouraged by hot weather - Japanese Beetles.You're doing it all wrong. You're suppose to interrupt their sexual activity during the day if you want to stop their spread, not wait until night when they're sleeping it off.
I've been gardening for over 40 years and never saw them before in any significant numbers, but for the last three years I've been fighting them and every year they come in greater numbers. They eat the leaves on various fruit plants, including blackberries, raspberries, currants and roses. It's easy to pick them (I flick or shake them from the leaves into a metal can filled half way with water), but every day a new contingent arrives. Their big Drang Nach Norden offensive just started, and I see that this summer I'll have to increase my daily engagement with them to twice-a-day routine to save the plants. They like hot weather and like to fool around in the heat of the day. Often you see several of them on top of each other engaging in group sex. They must enjoy the aforementioned midday activities and seem sluggish in the evening which is the best time to relocate them from the plants into a metal or glass container.
http://www.millionplants.com/advice/our-thoughts-and-advice-on-japanese-beetles/
You're doing it all wrong. You're suppose to interrupt their sexual activity during the day if you want to stop their spread, not wait until night when they're sleeping it off.
When I was a kid, I used to see these beetles every year living in NYC. But I haven't seen them in years. Maybe it's a local phenomenon?
Japanese beetle, Popillia japonica (Newman), is a severe invasive insect pest of turf, landscapes, and horticultural crops. It has successfully colonized much of the United States and has recently established in mainland Europe. The distribution and voltinism of P. japonica will undoubtedly change as a consequence of climate change, posing additional challenges to the management of this species.
Get out the nematodes in August and let them go to town in your grass eating the grubs of the beetles.
http://www.millionplants.com/advice/our-thoughts-and-advice-on-japanese-beetles/
This afternoon, a friend of mine went to the beach and took with him a camera and tripod. It was a hot day even near water.
He felt fine, took a few shots, moved a few meters to a new position, started to adjust his tripod, and next moment he was coming around from fainting beside his tripod. Fortunately, his wife had a thermos with cold water and resuscitated him.
Weather forecast for Fri and Sat calls for Humidex of 44C (110F). Not in Miami, but 2,400km north of it, right in Toronto.
In the past year, torrential rains have dumped water on U.S. farmlands, destroying acreage and delaying crops from getting planted on time.
Now, farmers face another hurdle: a stifling heat wave that’s spreading across the United States and is expected to be the worst in the farm regions, including Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, Missouri, Iowa and Illinois.
Another energy boondoggle.
"July 18 (Reuters) - New York on Thursday awarded two major offshore wind contracts to Norway’s Equinor and a joint venture between Denmark’s Orsted and U.S. utility Eversource, a key milestone in Governor Andrew Cuomo’s ambitious plan to slash the state’s greenhouse gas emissions.
The two contracts add up to 1700 MW of capacity, or enough to power 1 million homes, Cuomo said at a press conference in New York City. Four major developers had submitted proposals to the state, which plans to procure 9,000 MW of offshore wind energy by 2035."
So people's utility costs and/or taxes will go up $3.2 billion dollars to pay for all this new economic activity. That's $3200 per home for the million homes. Of course all this economic activity has to be paid by someone through additional taxes or increased utility costs. Plus, profits get sent partially to a foreign firm. Good move Gov Cuomo. I'm glad I moved to NJ where utility costs are less than I use to pay in NY.
US farmers now face extreme heat wave after floods and trade war.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/19/extreme-heat-wave-hits-us-farmers-already-suffering-from-flooding.html
And this is only the beginning.
Climate change means that temperatures could be even more unbearable in the future, according to Miriam Diamond, earth sciences professor at the University of Toronto. “The important point here is that this is not the new normal,” Diamond told CTV News Chanel. “The climate is continuing to heat up. So, we’re really hot right now and the future holds even higher temperatures for longer, more prolonged periods.”
You are obsessed with figures. Either you are in your mid-nineties and give not a bugger about the generations to come and care only about stretching your pension and savings for another year or so (my concern too, the fiscal, but not the future bit) or, simply, you think it's all one gigantic joke or scam, an invention of the biased, anti-Trump press. If that's the case, bear in mind that the concerns were there before the word Trump had any connotation beyond games of cards.
You rather die rich and leave the coming generations cursing your name?
As has been pointed out, it's not so much what alternatives cost to make, but what they cost if not made.
Based on the NYS project costs, it would cost $8 trillion dollars to replace the electric production in the US with wind assuming it was possible to operate with wind 100%. Of course, you can't Nor does the sun shine for solar. You still need to operate fossil fuel plants because wind doesn;t blow all the time. So you don't save anything.
Look at Germany. 40% of its electric are from renewables. Yet, their costs are 2 1/2 times Americas per KWH.
Also, their CO2 production has hardly changed in ten years. So what have they accomplished? Nothing.
Soon there will be Carbon taxing on international trade, and the laggards will pay dearly.
Alan, that's nonsense, you're creating a strawman. You do save by having to burn less fossil fuel (and produce less CO2 emission) with free wind and sun. These systems are complementary, and will not totally replace Fossil fuel utility plants.
Are you serious? Since when does the cost in the USA reflect the true cost of energy? Add the cost to society from increased droughts, flooding, Hurricanes, diseases, etc., and you'll get a more realistic comparison.
That's not due to renewable enery. If Germany hadn't added renewables to the mix, then their emissions would have skyrocketed. They do need to scale down the coal-generated energy production, and they are aware of that because they've committed to doing that in the light of the Paris agreements.
You are still searching for arguments for inaction. Time has run out for such games.
Soon there will be Carbon taxing on international trade, and the laggards will pay dearly.
Cheers,
Bart
Bart, do you mean Christine Lagarde? ;)
If you did, we'd just place a tariff on your goods. You don; think Trump will let you do that without hitting back, do you?And American consumers would pay the price at the checkout counter.
LOL, who knows what she will do when she becomes the new President of the European Central Bank, to replace Mario Draghi ...Trump should warm up to her easier than Dragi. ;)
Cheers,
Bart
And American consumers would pay the price at the checkout counter.And manufacturing companies will lose business to other suppliers as the prices on their goods go up.
Sure you save some emissions. But you still need the fossil fuel for backup. It's not like you can shut them down. So homeowner have to pay for both the new green energy and pay for upkeep of the existing fossil generators.
Germany's costs are higher than other European countries, not only the USA.
CO2 not only comes from the production of electricity. What about heating, automobiles, factory production, etc. Speaking of cars, Germany's diesel engines have been adding illegal pollution as well as CO2 to the air at 50-100 times the rate the law allows.
And American consumers would pay the price at the checkout counter.
Hi Bart, I know you've probably answered the question already, but I can't find the answer. What's your position on nuclear power?
By the way, fab, placing a energy tax on our goods means that your country's consumers are paying higher prices at the counter as well. Did you forget that works both ways? It's just a tariff by another name.What do you mean by "your country"?
What do you own stock in these companies? :)
Sure you save some emissions. But you still need the fossil fuel for backup. It's not like you can shut them down. So homeowner have to pay for both the new green energy and pay for upkeep of the existing fossil generators.
Germany's costs are higher than other European countries, not only the USA. Most Germans are furious about that. With all the hot weather you're getting, most Germans don;t have and would not be able to afford air conditioning with the cost of electricity being what it became. CO2 not only comes from the production of electricity. What about heating, automobiles, factory production, etc. Speaking of cars, Germany's diesel engines have been adding illegal pollution as well as CO2 to the air at 50-100 times the rate the law allows.
Regarding taxing on international trade, America has plenty of green energy. The oil-rich state of Texas has more wind production on it's own than all countries except for five. America is #2 in the world in green energy. Hey, we have Tesla cars and Tesla batteries. :) In any case, I don;t see how you can place taxes on trade. If you did, we'd just place a tariff on your goods. You don; think Trump will let you do that without hitting back, do you? :)
https://www.power-technology.com/features/wind-energy-by-country/ (https://www.power-technology.com/features/wind-energy-by-country/)
Hi Russ,
I'm in favor, as far as I can now judge, of the next generation of nuclear energy production, Thorium based reactors. They basically burn their own waste, so there is less of a waste management issue. But it will take some 30+ years before that becomes a feasible alternative. We cannot wait for that, and it will be hard to find investors, so it will be slow to add energy to the production pool.
So the solution will be to use multiple sources of clean energy, and transition to them fast to avoid the cost of Global warming.
There is also growing potential for Hydrogen fueled plants, or local generators, and engines for transportation. During the summer, there will soon be more energy produced than can be consumed. That excess can be used to produce Hydrogen gas for storage. The electrolysis
process is not very efficient, but it's better to use the surplus energy than to let it go to waste.
Cheers,
Bart
The fuel for solar and wind is free. So that part of the energy production changes to only paying for the infrastructure and maintenance, zero for fuel. So, if the building of the renewable energy plans is affordable (and the first ones are currently being built without the need for subsidies, thanks to the learning experiences and falling costs), the plants can be run at competitive costs. This includes the need for fast starting smaller Fossil fuel plants, which are also cheaper than full-scale plants that cannot throttle up/down as fast, and they use less fuel.$3200 per household for a million homes in the NYS project is a lot of money to install wind turbines. Those costs don't include overruns which always happens with construction. It doesn;t include additional lines for the power grid connection. It doesn;t include the costs to shutdown existing facilities. It doesn;t include the cost for smaller fossil fuel backup plants or for maintaining the larger existing facilities to backup when there's no wind. So I'm not misleading. The green energy community are the ones who are misleading because they never include the true overall cost. They only quote the cost to build the green plant. Germany is a perfect example as KWH costs have skyrocketed even though 40% of their electric production is green. The only thing green is the money they're spending.
Part of that has to do with the more rapid closing of nuclear energy plants. The losses for the owners of those plants need to be compensated. So there are several factors and one-time transition costs that make a simplistic cost comparison like you made, misleading.
Correct, there are other large producers of CO2 and other exhaust gasses. Steel production is a major one, but transportation is another big one. And Airplane fuel and Ship fuel are not even taxed yet, while they are producing another huge amount of CO2 and other emissions.
Carbon taxation is being implemented in Europe, and it won't be long before others, from outside the EU, will have to pay.
And because the USA imports more than it exports, the consumers will pay for the import taxes (just like they are doing now for Chinese manufactured goods).
Cheers,
Bart
What do you mean by "your country"?You responded to an original point I was making to Bart, a Dutchman. So I thought you were not an American. Sorry about that.
You responded to an original point I was making to Bart, a Dutchman. So I thought you were not an American. Sorry about that. It would be helpful though if you added your nationality to your profile. Our forum is international. It makes it easier to address and understand people's points if you know where they're from.It's amazing. I disagree with most of Russ's and your points and he thinks I am too young to understand and you think I am a foreigner. I'll refrain from profiling myself; it is much more revealing when you two do it.
$3200 per household for a million homes in the NYS project is a lot of money to install wind turbines. Those costs don't include overruns which always happens with construction. It doesn;t include additional lines for the power grid connection. It doesn;t include the costs to shutdown existing facilities. It doesn;t include the cost for smaller fossil fuel backup plants or for maintaining the larger existing facilities to backup when there's no wind. So I'm not misleading. The green energy community are the ones who are misleading because they never include the true overall cost. They only quote the cost to build the green plant. Germany is a perfect example as KWH costs have skyrocketed even though 40% of their electric production is green. The only thing green is the money they're spending.
Having said that, I'm all in favor of green energy. I have no axe to grind. If someone could come up with a design to use water to make energy and power cars, I'd be for it in a heartbeat. But the public should know what true costs are for green because that's money that might otherwise be spent for cancer research or to feed poor people.
I think part of the problem about costs is that no one really understands the real cost of either traditional fossil fuels or “Green” energy.
On the legacy side, the economic costs - at least in the US - are hugely distorted by direct and indirect government subsidies built into the tax code. However, we have a pretty good idea of the environmental costs, most of which are not reflected in what consumers pay for the energy.
On the “Green” side, we probably understand the economic costs, because the market is still relatively small and the government distortions are small enough to calculate. I don’t believe, however, we have a good handle on the environmental costs. Can anyone predict the cost of disposing of the lithium from tens of millions of car batteries? How about the environmental impact of manufacturing those batteries? There’s lots of new technology to be deployed, and we can’t understand how it will work out until we have a lot more of it than we have today, and it’s run through it’s useful life.
So how to decide? I think we need a risk management approach. As in: what are the risks from taking one or the other course?
I think the risks from a carbon-fuel based future are clear: continued warming and an environmental disaster which will affect everyone, but disproportionately the poor.
The main risk from an aggressive renewable energy approach seems to be that it will cost more money in the short run, and probably push off some other beneficial uses of that money, again impacting the poor. The secondary risks are that we may fail to make any impact in global warming and therefore have wasted the money, and/or we may create some other environmental problem we don’t foresee. But I doubt this track will have the same long-term impact on the world than our current course seems to hold.
I think part of the problem about costs is that no one really understands the real cost of either traditional fossil fuels or “Green” energy.
On the legacy side, the economic costs - at least in the US - are hugely distorted by direct and indirect government subsidies built into the tax code. However, we have a pretty good idea of the environmental costs, most of which are not reflected in what consumers pay for the energy.
On the “Green” side, we probably understand the economic costs, because the market is still relatively small and the government distortions are small enough to calculate. I don’t believe, however, we have a good handle on the environmental costs. Can anyone predict the cost of disposing of the lithium from tens of millions of car batteries? How about the environmental impact of manufacturing those batteries? There’s lots of new technology to be deployed, and we can’t understand how it will work out until we have a lot more of it than we have today, and it’s run through it’s useful life.
So how to decide? I think we need a risk management approach. As in: what are the risks from taking one or the other course?
I think the risks from a carbon-fuel based future are clear: continued warming and an environmental disaster which will affect everyone, but disproportionately the poor.
The main risk from an aggressive renewable energy approach seems to be that it will cost more money in the short run, and probably push off some other beneficial uses of that money, again impacting the poor. The secondary risks are that we may fail to make any impact in global warming and therefore have wasted the money, and/or we may create some other environmental problem we don’t foresee. But I doubt this track will have the same long-term impact on the world than our current course seems to hold.
That's pretty reasonable.
Regarding the cars: I fear that in the long run (no pun etc.) we will be using neither gas nor battery power for cars. I think cars will be off the road except for some official ones that carry VIPs of one kind or another. The problem isn't going to be fueling them but space for them. Cities are already a driving nightmare unless you are just passing through, and yes, dud batteries are going to be one helluva recycling deal. The Mafia could use the opportunity, though.
I mentioned some time ago that a lot of young people who live in cities no longer seek driving licences; I can see their point. They have not grown up with the competitive thing that cars usually become for the young, competitive in the sense if mine is hotter than yours competitive, which grows into the mine cost more than yours did thing. The subway or the bus is all they need or perhaps a taxi at night. Quite how folks in the sticks will get on is something else. Les gilets jaunes had a word or two about that.
Basically, I think our problems arise more from too much unprotected sex than any other factor: we are worse than the steel industries when it comes to overproduction. We make too many copies.
To fix that, though, we have to fight some churches as well as some urges. My wise old mo 'n law used to say that a standing dick had no conscience. I often wondered if she was speaking generally, pointedly or mystically. Always suspected the lady of being slightly fey.
Americans are so cool.
And First Lady is hot.She's so hot, she's cool. :P
She's so hot, she's cool. :P
Climate change “deniers” who claim the rapid temperature rise experienced by the world is part of a natural cycle have been proven wrong by a new study, experts said after it revealed that global warming is happening at an “unprecedented” scale that far exceeds temperature fluctuations during the last two millennia.
Warming in the 20th century, seen over 98 per cent of the world, is in “stark contrast” to previous warm and cool periods such as the “Little Ice Age” when frost fairs were famously held on a frozen Thames, according to the findings in published in the journal Nature.
“This paper should finally stop climate change deniers claiming that the recent observed coherent global warming is part of a natural climate cycle. This paper shows the truly stark difference between regional and localised changes in climate of the past and the truly global effect of anthropogenic greenhouse emissions.”
Well, I thought we had another 12 years.
Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands have recorded their highest ever temperatures, in a heatwave searing Western Europe.The new German record was still to be confirmed, it said, warning that it could get even hotter on Thursday.
- The Belgian town of Kleine Brogel hit 39.9C (102F), the hottest since 1833.
- The southern Dutch city of Eindhoven beat the 75-year-old national record, with a new high of 39.3C.
- Germany's weather service said a new record of 40.5C - just 0.2C higher - had been set in Geilenkirchen, near the Belgian and Dutch borders.
I don't know what the facts are. I'm not that wise. I'm just happy knowing that Prince Charles is on the case. :)
Alan,
are you really denying all those facts or are you just happy to see me (supplying new facts and evidence)?
Here is the latest data as of today:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49100271
I don't know what the facts are. I'm not that wise. I'm just happy knowing that Prince Charles is on the case. :)
“What he really wants and what he really feels warmly about is the future,” Trump said of Prince Charles. “He wants to make sure future generations have climate that is good climate, as opposed to a disaster, and I agree. I did mentioned a couple of things. I did say, ‘Well, the United States right now has among the cleanest climates there are, based on all statistics.’ And it’s even getting better because I agree with that. I want the best water, the cleanest water —crystal clean, crystal clean air.”
“I believe that there’s a change in weather, and I think it changes both ways. Don’t forget, it used to be called global warming. That wasn’t working. Then it was called climate change. Now it’s actually called extreme weather — because with extreme weather, you can’t miss,” Trump said on the morning show.
As to the facts, there are widely available - even in the link which I posted.What Trump said is never reported widely in the media. Nor was his comment about getting back into Paris which he said he'd do if the Chinese had to reduce CO2 as well rather than letting them do nothing until 2030. Of course, with the world ending in 18 months, it really won;t matter. :)
And as to Prince Charles, he is doing his best. He discussed the climate change even with Donald Trump.Quote"“What he really wants and what he really feels warmly about is the future,” Trump said of Prince Charles. “He wants to make sure future generations have climate that is good climate, as opposed to a disaster, and I agree. I did mentioned a couple of things. I did say, ‘Well, the United States right now has among the cleanest climates there are, based on all statistics.’ And it’s even getting better because I agree with that. I want the best water, the cleanest water —crystal clean, crystal clean air.”"
https://time.com/5601169/donald-trump-prince-charles-climate-change/ (https://time.com/5601169/donald-trump-prince-charles-climate-change/)
Commuters have been warned to not travel as soaring temperatures cause disruption to some services. The rising temperatures caused damage to overhead electric wires between London St Pancras and Luton, blocking all lines.
The blistering temperatures also damaged overhead electric wires between London Euston and Watford Junction, disrupting Virgin Trains services. Commuters have been warned to not travel as soaring temperatures cause disruption to some services. The rising temperatures caused damage to overhead electric wires between London St Pancras and Luton, blocking all lines.
Alan,
are you really denying all those facts or are you just happy to see me (supplying new facts and evidence)?
Here is the latest data as of today:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49100271
As a Belgian and living in the warmest part of Belgium I can tell this is exceptional. But there is more than one or two warm days. I have a small pond with fishes that normally do not reproduce in our climate. Since last year, I have juvenile fish in the pond. Climate is changing, but that’s not new. If human influence speeds things up, don’t know, we should stop believing we can steer nature. ( in negative or positive way) That being said, it doesn’t change the fact that we are ruining our planet on high speed.Thanks for the positive news about global warming. So fish are expanding their range becoming more successful due to the increase in temperature. That's the point I've been making for two years. Warming climate has both positive as well as negative effects. It's interesting however that you automatically concluded that it's ruining our planet at high speed. If those fish could talk, they wouldn't agree with your point of view.
So I hear that Paris is about to break the record temperature from 1947. Wait, what!? It was even hotter in 1947 than today!? 72 years ago?
72 years ago the world population was about 2-2.5 billion people, today it is 3x as much, with corresponding industrialization and CO2 emissions. And yet it was as hot as today.
Three to five million years ago, the concentration of CO2 was as high as today, and the see level was like 10m higher. Today it isn't.
... Climate change, as has been explained many times already, is the long (11, 20 or 30 years) term trend...
Thanks for the positive news about global warming. So fish are expanding their range becoming more successful due to the increase in temperature. That's the point I've been making for two years. Warming climate has both positive as well as negative effects. It's interesting however that you automatically concluded that it's ruining our planet at high speed. If those fish could talk, they wouldn't agree with your point of view.
If fish could talk they would tell you about the plastic mess in the oceans, Alan.
11 years!? Even 30!? Seriously!? That’s climate change???
You guys are getting more and more laughable. Coincides with rising temperatures?
Pollution has nothing to do with warming temperatures. In any case, more fish means more sea lions and more penguins that means more food for polar bears to feed on.
In any case, more fish means more sea lions and more penguins that means more food for polar bears to feed on.Polar bears are not predators of sea lions. And I doubt many polar bears are going to swim from the Arctic to the Antarctic to feed on penguins.
I doubt many polar bears are going to swim from the arctic to the antarctic to feed on penguins.
I doubt many polar bears are going to swim from the Arctic to the Antarctic to feed on penguins.Hey you never know. If they get hungry enough. :)
I don’t make that link. I say human sort is ruining earth in speed. Pollution and destruction of the natural habitat of other species as main reason.
... Since you don't provide a source...
...the last time Earth’s atmosphere contained the amount of carbon dioxide present today, Antarctica was a plant-covered oasis, sea levels were an estimated 10 to 20 meters higher, and global temperatures were an average of 2 to 3 degrees Celsius warmer. In the Arctic, summer temperatures were a full 14 degrees higher than they are now.
I thought you are current with the latest news? Or you just notice those confirming your bias?My wife and I were planning a cruise from Rio to Chile around South America with a stop off in Antarctica to eat some penguins. If we wait awhile, we might be able to leave our parkas at home.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/warming-temperatures-could-transform-antarctica-plant-filled-land-green-180971880/
"CO2 Levels Are as High as They Were Three Million Years Ago"
11 years!? Even 30!? Seriously!? That’s climate change???
Yes, that's the period over which to average to pick up the Trend and suppress the fluctuations. The 11 year period e.g. is to even out the solar sunspot cycle fluctuation. Surprised you didn't know that.
Pollution has nothing to do with warming temperatures. In any case, more fish means more sea lions and more penguins that means more food for polar bears to feed on.
My wife and I were planning a cruise from Rio to Chile around South America with a stop off in Antarctica to eat some penguins. If we wait awhile, we might be able to leave our parkas at home.
Antarctic penguin populations have dropped more than 25 percent on average over the past two decades, according to a new report released Tuesday from the nonprofit environmental group Oceanites. Climate change is leading to a precipitous decline in several penguin populations on the Antarctic Peninsula, according to the group, which completed the first comprehensive survey of the region’s species in 24 years using satellite images.
“What happens to penguins, happens to us all. We’re all biological creatures,” Naveen said, adding that humans, like penguins, have four basic needs for survival: food, home, health and offspring.
Allan, the fish stock in the oceans has been continuously decreasing. The only places the fish stock is increasing are the fish farms, but that fish comes laced with antibiotics, hormones and sea lice.Fish population reduction in the open oceans due to man eating more of them is one thing. But if climate changes allows population increases, that's a separate issue and a plus for warming. So the problem is not the climate. It's man's increasing population as a predator that's affecting fish stocks.
Never mind parkas, but maybe also the forks and knives.
Could be due to climate change or cruise tourists.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/penguin-populations-shrinking-antarctica
Trend smoothing is one thing. Claiming that 11 years represent "climate" vs. "weather" is quite another.
Here's the link for the penguins million.Do you even bother to read the articles you cite?
https://www.livescience.com/64282-hidden-adelie-penguin-supercolony.html (https://www.livescience.com/64282-hidden-adelie-penguin-supercolony.html)
Do you even bother to read the articles you cite?
"After all, the rest of the Adélie penguins on the mainland, their habitat hit hard by climate change, have been steadily declining for the past 40 years. In fact, "nowhere is the climate changing more rapidly than on the Antarctic peninsula," Lynch said.
But some of the team's new findings suggest that although 1.5 million seems like a big number, it's not as large as it once might have been. After their initial analyses of recent satellite imagery, the team decided to look at past satellite images that date back to 1982.
They found that the Adélie penguin populations likely peaked in the late 1990s and "has been on a slow but steady decline ever since," Lynch said. The decline "is not catastrophic," but rather on the order of a 10 to 20 percent decline, she later added."
Today, the temperatures in the Netherlands were a record high since the mid 1800's (records before that were not as scientifically accurate or methodical).
What also appears not to register with the climate change deniers (could it be caused by their brains overheating?) is that the rate of temperature rise is unprecedented (especially absent solar irradiance maxima or change in earth axis tilt, or orbital forcing) in known history.
It's nice to see you back Ray with your insight of the climate issues.
... I've never denied that climate is always changing...
Of course it does... every 11 years.
Another day, another record
(https://accuweather.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/2fcb089/2147483647/resize/590x/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faccuweather-bsp.s3.amazonaws.com%2F3d%2F71%2F5f50465a4066acb28f8497f630a4%2Fall-time-records-set.jpg)
and 42.6C (108.7F) in Paris
Does the Gulf Stream have anything to do with the heat wave in Europe?
Does the Gulf Stream have anything to do with the heat wave in Europe?
Another day, another record
(https://accuweather.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/2fcb089/2147483647/resize/590x/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faccuweather-bsp.s3.amazonaws.com%2F3d%2F71%2F5f50465a4066acb28f8497f630a4%2Fall-time-records-set.jpg)
and 42.6C (108.7F) in Paris
Complete structures can collapse in these record heat temperatures.
Also, as Alan Klein keeps pointing out, global warming has many positive impacts:
https://a.msn.com/r/2/AAETEWC?m=en-us&referrerID=InAppShare
Some people who reject climate science seem to think climate scientists have never heard that the climate has changed in the past—as if scientists weren’t the ones who discovered those events in the first place. In reality, researchers are intensely interested in past climates because there is a lot to learn from them. You can see how sensitive Earth’s climate is to changes, for example, or how variable things can be even when the long-term average temperature is steady.
(“Climate has changed without humans before, so humans can’t be changing it now” is not a logically valid argument, FYI. It's the equivalent to arguing that we can't cause forest fires, since they occurred before we were around.)
The results showed that only one period was a truly global event—the modern warming caused by human activities. More than 98% of the globe experienced the warmest temperatures of the last 2,000 years during the 20th century.
So freaking what?
Some people did something. We exist. We do things. What do you want? Humans not to exist? Or to stop our activities?
So freaking what?
Some people did something. We exist. We do things. What do you want? Humans not to exist? Or to stop our activities?
... Unless we plan on limiting births through force like China did with their one-child policy...
Do not worry. We have a much more formidable totalitarian force than the communist China: feminists and leftists. Neither China, nor Russia, with all their military might, even combined, would ever be able to decimate the Western civilization they way our own feminists and leftists will.Interestingly, births are down in many western societies (plus Japan). Isn't Europe decreasing in population, at least native born? Maybe the flow of immigrants is a natural condition. And beneficial. After all, isn't that how Africans inhabited Europe. Now, others are immigrating there. Look what happened to the population of North America in just a few hundred years. With America going broke, I was telling my my wife we should let in anyone who wants to come here and legalize all illegals. After all, someone has to pay for our Social Security. :)
... to think about prevention and act accordingly. But no...
Like what? Banning plastic straws? Erecting more Don Quixote enemies?
I think Bart's telling us we need to run for it, Slobodan. That would be about as useful a defense as anything else anyone could do.
Even those beat being hated by your (grand)children or others who will suffer the consequences.
Many fires can be put out with a single cup of water, if applied early.
Waiting to take corrective actions will only magnify the task and its cost.
Cheers,
Bart
... Waiting to take corrective actions...
Again, like what?
Banning air traffic and cow farting? Not having children? The catastrophic scenarios are like 100 to 200 years away, not 12 years. In that time frame we will find technological solutions and/or adapt, without killing our way of life to return to hunting for our lunch with bow and arrow.
Like what? Banning plastic straws? Erecting more Don Quixote enemies?
In a highly technical yet precise manner, the forum user breaks it down into 5 simple steps that is achievable enough.
Like what? Banning plastic straws? Erecting more Don Quixote enemies?
Okay, Bart, tell us what you think the "cup of water" is.
Straws would be a start, then we could think sbout the zillions of plastic flip-flop shoes that I heard are even more prevalent on beaches - as washed up junk - than bags, even. The shops here are doing a good thing with bags: they charge for them now. I have been reusing mine for months and they hold up perfectly well. The car has climate: I tried it when new to make sure it was working - after figuring out how! - and it hasn't been used since except for the very rare times I have to hit the motorway, when the main reason I close the window is to prevent getting pebbles and rubbish in my face. The home unit hasn't been on in decades, other than to check out it works.
I discovered my legs a couple of years ago, and now driving is only for heavy shopping; the klick's walk into the port and a supermarket does me good. I even use the iPad most of the time instead of the desktop computer and the monitor. How many lights do I need to have on to use it or watch the news or Montalbano? Tiny things, multiplied by households, and they achieve something to the general good. And save us money, which is a pleasant side-effect.
Everyone can find little things they can think about in their own lifestyle, things that have no purpose whatsoever but, nonetheless, churn up the bills and waste energy.
There doesn't have to be a total revolution to get things going in the right direction.
You only have to examine your own style of living and can find all sorts of tiny things that add up.
"It just shows the lack of understanding the administration has on how the current waste management infrastructure works in the US. If they did, they'd know that straws are too lightweight to be recycled and are made of a material with no end-of-use life."
... Everyone can find little things they can think about in their own lifestyle, things that have no purpose whatsoever but, nonetheless, churn up the bills and waste energy...
Yeah, it might make you feel oh, so good and righteous, but it does squat for the climate, even if 7.5 billion people would do the same.
I, for one, love my a/c (just not AOC) in my car and home.
Too little, too late. We've passed the point where a cup sufficed several decades ago.
Right now it already takes a lot more to even stabilize the situation at a 2 degree Celsius Global temperature increase.
If you are seriously interested in doing something about it, I suggest reading a copy of "Drawdown" (https://www.drawdown.org/the-book). The choice of "the 100 most substantive solutions to global warming" might inspire you.
Cheers,
Bart
Yeah, it might make you feel oh, so good and righteous, but it does squat for the climate, even if 7.5 billion people would do the same.
I, for one, love my a/c (just not AOC) in my car and home.
Or if I remove every day 35 japanese beetles from my blackberry bushes, in one month that adds up to over 1000 fewer beetles on this world.
Sorry, Les, it doesn't mean anything of the sort. While you were removing those 1,000, another 50,000 hatched.
I ain't no quitter, Russ. With any luck I can neutralize another 1,000 before the end of this season.
If I haven't killed the 1,000 beetles, they and their offsprings would have produced another 100,000. As I say, in practical terms it means I can keep eating my berries and admire my bushes.
Well, at least it'll keep you busy.Actually, it doesn't take much time. A few minutes in the morning and then repeat the exercise in the evening. So far, it hasn't interfered with my Lula postings.
... The worst aporoach is to give up and keep digging the hole deeper and deeper.
I personally rarely, if ever, use straws, however...
Thousands of Trump-branded plastic straws have been sold on the US president's official campaign website - at $15 for 10 - since they were launched as an alternative to "liberal" paper straws.
We could go back to paper straws. Remember those? But then the tree huggers would be bitching about using wood to make straws. Bart probably would come up with a chart.Here in New Jersey, restaurants are switching over to paper straws. I hate them. They have a funny feeling in your mouth. They tend to get soft and fall apart. They suck.
Here in New Jersey, restaurants are switching over to paper straws. I hate them. They have a funny feeling in your mouth. They tend to get soft and fall apart. They suck.
“When drinking out of a straw, the movement of the mouth area that you have to make will encourage the breakdown of collagen and elasticity more quickly, causing unnecessary wrinkles and lines.”
Why do you need the straws? They will make you flatulent and old looking.More flatulence? That means more CO2 as well. So I'm killing the whales and causing global warming too.
I grew up behind the iron curtain and we had to learn at a young age how to drink straight from the cup or bottle.
https://www.littlethings.com/dangers-drinking-straw/2
More flatulence? That means more CO2 as well. So I'm killing the whales and causing global warming too.
I'm not sure about the whales. On many occasions the whales get injured and killed by cruise ships.Read item 7 in your link regarding whales.
Warmer ocean temperatures and melting sea ice in the polar regions may jeopardise the ecology of the Arctic and Antarctic feeding grounds of many large whales. ... Climate change may also impact the areas of the oceans in which whales live, including migration patterns.
No climate event of the last 2,000 years looks like humanity’s
Warm or cool periods you may have heard of were regional affairs
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/07/the-only-global-climate-event-of-last-2000-years-was-ours/
Cheers,
Bart
“Climate has changed without humans before, so humans can’t be changing it now” is not a logically valid argument, FYI. It's the equivalent to arguing that we can't cause forest fires, since they occurred before we were around.
The status quo, still accelerating:
(https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_full_record.png)
Good for you, Bart. I was pretty sure you'd come up with a chart.
Too bad it isn't a cartoon, like Slobodan likes to post, but then there is little to laugh about the rate of increase ...Bart, What do you think about Ray's explanation in his last post how increased CO2 levels can also help the environment?
Cheers,
Bart
Bart, What do you think about Ray's explanation in his last post how increased CO2 levels can also help the environment?
So can manure, but you wouldn't want it foot high.No, I would not want mounds of it outside my door. But manure is spread around by farmers to fertilize the ground to help food production. So it has an important benefit by adding minerals back into the ground. That's what Ray suggested in his post about CO2. There are good points about it.
Too bad it isn't a cartoon. . .
No, I would not want mounds of it outside my door. But manure is spread around by farmers to fertilize the ground to help food production. So it has an important benefit by adding minerals back into the ground. That's what Ray suggested in his post about CO2. There are good points about it.
It's also the point I;ve been making. That there's two sides to a coin. Climate change supporters only talk about the negative effects of climate change and CO2. For the public to have a honest understanding of the whole truth about it, the whole truth should be revealed. Only then can we make intelligent decisions about how to deal with it instead of using it to gain political advantage and force the redistribution of wealth which is what I see here in the USA.
Urine can produce large amounts of the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide after spilling onto the ground, soaking into soils and mixing with manure. Ammonia in the urine can also contribute directly to pollution and drive the creation of harmful algal blooms when it enters water systems. The Dutch government is introducing stricter rules on the ammonia emissions of its dairy sector, which is a crucial component in the nation’s economy.
However, cow urine is only one component in these emissions, with CO2 as well as methane and nitrous oxide from livestock and fertilizers contributing significant chunks as well.
Urine patches in cattle pastures generate large concentrations of the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide through nitrification and denitrification processes in urine-contaminated soils.[1][2] Over the past few decades, the cattle population has increased more rapidly than the human population.[3] Between the years 2000 and 2050, the cattle population is expected to increase from 1.5 billion to 2.6 billion.[4] When large populations of cattle are packed into pastures, excessive amounts of urine soak into soils. This increases the rate at which nitrification and denitrification occur and produce nitrous oxide. Currently, nitrous oxide is one of the single most important ozone-depleting emissions and is expected to remain the largest throughout the 21st century.
Sometime, too much of a good thing is simply too much. To continue with the cow output analogy, Netherlands has been for years confronted with overabundance of cow urine, and consequently with excess ammonia on the fields.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_urine_patches
People are the problem. Increasing populations just affect the environment. In Florida, look what the Burmese python has done there in the Everglades? 98% of mammals there have been wiped out since they "escaped" into the wild.
There is a deadly battle playing out in the Florida Everglades between pythons and alligators. Unlike gators, pythons are not native to Florida. They were first reported in the state in 2000. They came as pets but ended up being released into the wild. Now, pythons and alligators are natural enemies.
I'm assuming here that the cattle are not in a sustaining and natural environment as in 'grass fed'. I assume they are mainly grain-fed and that large numbers are kept in small fields which wouldn't produce sufficient grass to feed them. Right?
The innovative company Hanskamp, based in Doetinchem, has developed a cow toilet that collects urine in an effort to reduce ammonia. Designed primarily to ease the ever-increasing regulations on the dairy industry, the CowToilet is an automatic urinal that cows use voluntarily and is designed to collect urine before it hits the floor.
About 90 percent of ammonia emissions come from agriculture, according to Wageningen University and Research in The Netherlands. Excess ammonia emissions are a big deal in Europe; there are national limits in force aimed to reduce gases. In an effort to limit ammonia emissions from the agricultural sector, dairy farmers in Europe are forced to pay big fees to meet ammonia-emission and manure-disposal requirements.
It was a whopper of a problem. Everything was transported by horse-drawn vehicles of one kind or another – people, goods, food – everything. In cities like New York, the horse dung began to: stink, pile up, overwhelm... The average horse produced about 24 pounds of manure a day. With 200,000 horses (in New York), that’s nearly 5 million pounds of horse manure. A day. Where did it go?
In 1898, New York hosted the first International urban planning conference. The agenda was dominated by horse manure, because cities around the world were experiencing the same crisis. But no solution could be found. “Stumped by the crisis,” writes Eric Morris, “the urban planning conference declared its work fruitless and broke up in three days instead of the scheduled ten.” The world had seemingly reached the point where its largest cities could not survive without the horse but couldn’t survive it either. And then the problem vanished.
About that manure...
The average horse produced about 24 pounds of manure a day. With 200,000 horses (in New York), that’s nearly 5 million pounds of horse manure.
Bart, What do you think about Ray's explanation in his last post how increased CO2 levels can also help the environment?
In both environments. To a smaller degree on pastures, which has been going on for centuries, but due to the industrialization of cattle farms, the cows are now housed mainly in confined areas and the urine and manure are trucked out onto the fields. About 25 years ago, I met a Dutch professor from the Wageningen University in Holland who was tasked with a project to dry and solidify the cow urine and find export markets for it. It was a big problem then and surely it is even bigger problem now. Recently, a new idea to tackle this problem was introduced - a cow toilet.
https://www.agupdate.com/agriview/news/business/dutch-invent-cow-toilet/article_d16a86ad-f47b-56b9-aca9-c7c8b10effbe.html
If you have a bad lawn, hire some bitches. There is nothing like pooch urine to make your grass grow dark, thick and rich. I sometimes wonder if bottling it might make me a millionaire in the treatment of baldness.
Regarding the Everglades python: in a few years it will mutate to suit its surroundings, and so expect pythons with a venomous bite. As with Australia and rural India, it's nature's way of writing Keep Out notices. There was an interesting docu. on tv recently investigating the problem of snake bite deaths in India. It was horrific, and the programme suggested it was actually a massive underestimation due to such bites often not being reported. I can't recall the exact figure officially cited, but I remember it as around 36,000 a year or so. Apparently, and the film kinda proved it, the king cobra will hold its ground but try to avoid biting you, and then wander off if left in peace.
There was a high-speed sequence of a snake attacking a prosthetic foot used to replicate a person standing on it in the dark. The snake actually did a head/butt, and made its escape rather than bite. Perhaps the experiment was flawed, because by smell, the snake knew it was no foot, and could well break its teeth if bitten.
Apparently, the krait makes a habit of seeking out humans, such as folks asleep, climbing in beside them, biting, and pissing off unseen and unnoticed, the victim dying in his sleep.
I have problems with ants.
:-)
The UK's National Trust, a national charity responsible for the upkeep of some of the country's most precious stately homes, gardens and parks, is wading into the discussion. And they're likely to upset the feminists as well as the pee-phobic, claiming male superiority when it comes to urine. Staff at the National Trust's Wimpole Hall property are being encouraged to pee on a compost bale, saving the organization water, creating a nutrient rich compost activator to feed the Estate's 400 acres of gardens and parkland, and providing a valuable educational tool for visitors.
Highlighting a single aspect of a complex system is an oversimplification. Most plants/trees have their specific CO2 optimum, so it's not one-size-fits-all, and also not more is 'better'. It not only benefits food-crops, but also weeds. Plants also need nutrients from the soil. More biomass may deplete soil nutrients. Without nutrients, no growth. More biomass extracts more moisture from the ground. Without sufficient water, no growth. Some leaf biomass can also lead to more runoff and erosion during rain, which can lead to loss of fertile soil and too many nutrients in the water, leading to Algae bloom, and fish starvation for a lack of oxygen.
That's just the Photosynthesis related part. The temperature rise caused by CO2 can lead to droughts and wildfires, or flooding and runoff, and exotic insects that could target the crops (and/or wildlife/humans) without natural enemies. It causes more frequent extreme weather events that could hurt crops but also humans.
Elevated levels of CO2 can be utilized in greenhouses, where all aspects can be controlled. But that already happens.
Excess CO2 also has drawbacks, and the current rate of CO2 growth causes more negative effects than positive ones.
The problem is the rate of change. It's too fast for nature to adapt smoothly, so it will lead to all sorts of disruptions and destruction. we need to reduce CO2 emissions to allow the earth to achieve a new equilibrium.
Cheers,
Bart
If you have a bad lawn, hire some bitches. There is nothing like pooch urine to make your grass grow dark, thick and rich. I sometimes wonder if bottling it might make me a millionaire in the treatment of baldness.I believe poisonous snakes tend to save their venom for prey that they want dead so they can then eat it. They're not interested in killing enemies of theirs, just getting away from them is enough.
Regarding the Everglades python: in a few years it will mutate to suit its surroundings, and so expect pythons with a venomous bite. As with Australia and rural India, it's nature's way of writing Keep Out notices. There was an interesting docu. on tv recently investigating the problem of snake bite deaths in India. It was horrific, and the programme suggested it was actually a massive underestimation due to such bites often not being reported. I can't recall the exact figure officially cited, but I remember it as around 36,000 a year or so. Apparently, and the film kinda proved it, the king cobra will hold its ground but try to avoid biting you, and then wander off if left in peace.
There was a high-speed sequence of a snake attacking a prosthetic foot used to replicate a person standing on it in the dark. The snake actually did a head/butt, and made its escape rather than bite. Perhaps the experiment was flawed, because by smell, the snake knew it was no foot, and could well break its teeth if bitten.
Apparently, the krait makes a habit of seeking out humans, such as folks asleep, climbing in beside them, biting, and pissing off unseen and unnoticed, the victim dying in his sleep.
I have problems with ants.
:-)
Interesting angle on the subject. Most probably, all that substance has been transported onto the adjoining fields. I wonder how long that horse era in US cities lasted before the arrival of cars.The issue of horses vs. cars is an interesting one. Horse manure spreads diseases and horses have their own unwanted problems for man. That brings up the issue with fossil fuels. Even if the argument about their negatives is absolutely true, we can't forget that fossil fuels have provided cheap, efficient, and readily available energy for heating and cooling and power for transportation and manufacturing. This has allowed man to advance and be better off than before we had these fuels. Think of all the forests that would have been ripped down for fuel had we not discovered coal and oil and natural gas? Imagine the damage to man and beast?
Compared with 200,000 horses then, today there are a million and half cars in New York, generating also a great quantity of undesirable waste, such as old oil, used tires, and all kinds of non-recyclable plastics.
According to my observation, canine urine and especially from the female burns the grass. I used to have two large Bouviers de Flanders (originally of Dutch descent), and after seeing the damage they inflicted to the grass, I kept them away from my lawn. Actually, the male as one would expect, preferred the trees and fences rather then the lawn. Smaller dogs might not be so destructive, or maybe the grass killing strength / fertilizing effect depends also on the food they eat and type of grass.
On the other hand, human urine is actually quite beneficial to the lawn and it keeps it green. Before the feminists jump into the frey, it must be said that when it comes to watering the lawn, male urine is more effective and highly desirable. Allegedly, the scent keeps also the cougars and coyotes away from your front yard.
https://www.treehugger.com/lawn-garden/is-male-pee-better-than-female-pee-the-compost-conundrum.html
Pee quality varies a lot, and I speak here not from a medical pov of which I know nothing, but from experience of life in a community where one of the rules is that no flushing, unless essential, take place between midnight and 8a.m. so as not to disturb light sleepers above or below one's own apartment.
....
We could perhaps start a new section on pee genres. Could prove of educational value.
:-)
A study out of Finland has found that plants fertilized with urine performed four times as well as nonfertilized plants and just as well as plants given commercial mineral fertilizer.
Urine is an excellent source of nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium and trace elements. All the right elements that are necessary in large quantities for plant growth. One litre of urine contains 11 gms of nitrogen, 1 gm of phosphorus and 2 gms of potassium. Nitrogen promotes leafy growth, phosphorus promotes root development and seed germination. Phosphorous and potassium promote fruit and flower development.
Diseases of the urinary tract contaminate urine so those with a urinary tract infection should not use their urine for fertilizer. Also, those taking antibiotics or meds should abstain, and those who consume a lot of salt should consider reducing their salt intake.
In Florida, look what the Burmese python has done there in the Everglades? 98% of mammals there have been wiped out since they "escaped" into the wild. All species change nature to some extent. Then nature balances it off and life goes on. Because of our short lifespan, we can only see a very narrow window of time. We assume what is now was always before. So when the environment or climate changes, we immediately think negatively. Something must be wrong. But it's only natural processes that are evolving that we, as a member of nature, are part of too.
This likely wasn't a call police officials were expecting after an approximately four foot long python snake was spotted at an Esso gas station in Toronto early Tuesday.
Police and fire officials arrived at the Esso at Victoria Park and Danforth Avenue around midnight after receiving a call that the snake was coming up from the sewer grate at the drive through location there.
The pythons made it now all the way to Toronto.
(https://images.twnmm.com/c55i45ef3o2a/3acpw4JUQS5v5jxprGgeUB/c891b467e0e64cc10052baf52a638f83/snake1.jpg?w=680&fm=jpg)
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/news/article/python-snake-found-at-toronto-esso-gas-station-victoria-park-avenue-danforth-avenue
It could be worse. They could be cobras or banded kraits.
The Germans are always attacking you guys.
Well, these ticks do not carry permits, so they are not German citizens, and probably illegal ...
Cheers,
Bart
Good luck with them, Bart. I hope they'll end up like the Nazis did.
Hey, Alan. Wanna guess what the Apex Predator of humans is? The organism of which we should be most afraid? It's one of the species most likely to "benefit" (as you love to call it) from global warming?
Mosquitoes are our apex predator, the deadliest hunter of human beings on the planet. A swarming army of 100 trillion or more mosquitoes patrols nearly every inch of the globe, killing about 700,000 people annually. Researchers suggest that mosquitoes may have killed nearly half of the 108 billion humans who have ever lived across our 200,000-year or more existence.
Paywall:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/27/opinion/sunday/mosquitoes-malaria-zika-history.html
Good luck with them, Bart. I hope they'll end up like the Nazis did.
By the way, the sister of my oldest son's wife is Lynn Buller, boss of The American Book Center in Amsterdam. We used to see Lynn and her husband occasionally when they'd visit Manitou Springs, Colorado. Can't do it any longer because we're in Florida for good now.
You mean, fleeing to South America?
“Science tells us that we have 12 years before we reach the horizon of catastrophe when it comes to our climate.”
— South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg
“Scientists are very clear we don’t have more than 10 years to get this right.”
— Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Tex.)
“Slogan writers are vague on whether they mean climate chaos will happen after 12 years, or if we have 12 years to avert it. But both are misleading,” Myles Allen, one of the lead authors, wrote in April.
“Please stop saying something globally bad is going to happen in 2030,” he wrote. “Bad stuff is already happening and every half a degree of warming matters, but the IPCC does not draw a ‘planetary boundary’ at 1.5°C beyond which lie climate dragons.”
China appears on track to reach its carbon goals up to nine years earlier than planned under the Paris agreement, in a potential huge boost for efforts to tackle climate change.
The world’s biggest polluter accounts for a quarter of humanity’s emissions today, making the nation a crucial part of any efforts to avoid dangerous global warming.
... China’s shift from heavy industry to a high tech service economy...
A new study suggests China’s shift from heavy industry to a high tech service economy will cause CO2 emissions to peak well before the 2030 goal. The small cities and old industries will be still polluting in the old way, but it would be a significant step in the right direction..First, that's a lot of speculation. Even the article states the following:"However, Haikun and colleagues admit they didn’t analyse many small cities, which have the potential to develop more, so the real emissions may end up higher."
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2211366-china-is-on-track-to-meet-its-climate-change-goals-nine-years-early/ (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2211366-china-is-on-track-to-meet-its-climate-change-goals-nine-years-early/)
Alan, I Agree with all your points.
However, it seems that they are moving into the right direction with reducing the pollution in China. After all, even for them wearing the breathing masks on the streets, reduction of pollution is the only way for survival.
The pythons made it now all the way to Toronto.
The story continues. For the benefit of the international readers, I felt compelled to report new developments in the python episode.
The python was found Tuesday early morning climbing out of the grate at a gas station. All papers, radio and TV stations had a good story for the whole day. Which was improved Tuesday night, as the python was reunited with his guardian, one happy looking lady who was showing off the curled snake and announcing that it will get a bath that night.
She kept her promise and washed the snake, and then she realized that it was not her snake. It was slightly larger, stronger and with different markings. So today, all papers, radio and TV stations rectified the story. Then a man called the lady that it could be his snake. Happy that the snake will be now reunited with the real owner, she requested a photo of his snake, and then after comparing his pictures with the snake in her terrarium she determined that it couldn't be his snake. In the meantime, 30 more people called her, so there must be now quite a few pythons roaming Toronto streets and sewers.
Alan, I Agree with all your points.
However, it seems that they are moving into the right direction with reducing the pollution in China. After all, even for them wearing the breathing masks on the streets, reduction of pollution is the only way for survival.
A new study led by Haikun Wang, Xi Lu, and Yu Deng doesn't look directly at industry or the grid. Instead, it examines the relationship between economic growth and emissions to project that China's should peak in the early 2020s.
the researchers see evidence that these metropolises follow an economic relationship known as the environmental Kuznets curve—emissions per capita stops increasing once a certain GDP per capita is reached. The idea is basically that dirty growth eventually provides the resources to switch to cleaner options.
There are concerns the village could be levelled if the dam, which dates to 1838, gives way.
"At this time the future of the dam wall remains in the balance and I would remind people of the very real danger posed to them should the wall collapse".
Why is global warming being claimed as the cause of the heat wave? That doesn't seem correct. Didn't the heat come from Africa and was caused by a particular weather pattern?
"The heat wave was caused by a strong omega block,[5] consisting of hot, dry air from North Africa, trapped between cold storm systems. The high-pressure area of hot air, called Yvonne, stretched from the central Mediterranean to Scandinavia and was pinned between two low-pressure areas, one over western Russia and the other over the eastern Atlantic.[6]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_2019_European_heat_wave (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_2019_European_heat_wave)
Why is global warming being claimed as the cause of the heat wave? That doesn't seem correct. Didn't the heat come from Africa and was caused by a particular weather pattern?
"The heat wave was caused by a strong omega block,[5] consisting of hot, dry air from North Africa, trapped between cold storm systems. The high-pressure area of hot air, called Yvonne, stretched from the central Mediterranean to Scandinavia and was pinned between two low-pressure areas, one over western Russia and the other over the eastern Atlantic.[6]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_2019_European_heat_wave (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_2019_European_heat_wave)
Hot Map..l
Clearly localized. Where is the “global” part?
Clearly localized. Where is the “global” part?
The run of unprecedented temperatures in July – which sent records tumbling in the UK, the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany – would have been “extremely unlikely” without climate change.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/climate-change-made-europes-2019-record-heatwave-up-to-hundred-times-more-likely (https://www.carbonbrief.org/climate-change-made-europes-2019-record-heatwave-up-to-hundred-times-more-likely)
Not really localized (there are maxima and minima until equilibrium is achieved, and there is a night/day cycle), when you realize that the temperature differences are constantly being redistributed around the world. It is also clear that the land mass warms up faster than the immense body of water, and that water, therefore, has a dampening effect on coastal temperatures.
Since most of the landmass is located in the northern hemisphere, this will contribute more to raising the world average, and the southern hemisphere lowers the world average. The global average is increasing, less fast in the southern hemisphere, faster in the northern hemisphere.
Part of the redistribution of heat is done by the air, and part by the ocean currents. For example, in my part of the European continent, by the warm North Atlantic Gulf Stream going from the equator to the northeast in the direction of the Arctic Circle (which also causes more moderate European temperatures in winter). But the multi-decadal trend is almost 2°C higher in my country, over a period of only about 70 years. The extremes are becoming more extreme.
Cheers,
Bart
I'm not sure the scientists in the article agree with your assessment. Even if you took their 1 in 50-150 continental and 1 in 20 in Britain's odds, that only means that this happens every 20 to 50 or 150 years, a perturbation in the course of climate history. It just mean wait another few years and you'll see it again, climate change or no climate change. It's one of those things that just happens.
... why there is such a big discrepancy between the observed trends and the modelled trends.
Quote... why there is such a big discrepancy between the observed trends and the modelled trends.
Remember that the summer Arctic polar cap should have been melted already and Maldives underwater by now, according to "models."
Fascinating story in the Wall Street Journal this morning. "If You Want 'Renewable Energy,' Get Ready to Dig." An extract from the beginning of the article: "Building one wind turbine requires 900 tons of steel, 2,500 tons of concrete and 45 tons of plastic." It goes on to describe what it takes to build solar panels and goes into the problem caused by discarded solar panels. The article makes clear that an attempt to provide the world's power with what are called "renewable" sources would destroy the earth.
I couldn't provide a link to the article that'll let you read the whole thing without subscribing to WSJ online, but you can read the first paragraph and a half at https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-you-want-renewable-energy-get-ready-to-dig-11565045328.
Sorry, Bart, I couldn't dig up a chart.
Be nice to Bart. He's my friend. :)
Fascinating story in the Wall Street Journal this morning. "If You Want 'Renewable Energy,' Get Ready to Dig." An extract from the beginning of the article: "Building one wind turbine requires 900 tons of steel, 2,500 tons of concrete and 45 tons of plastic." It goes on to describe what it takes to build solar panels and goes into the problem caused by discarded solar panels. The article makes clear that an attempt to provide the world's power with what are called "renewable" sources would destroy the earth.
I couldn't provide a link to the article that'll let you read the whole thing without subscribing to WSJ online, but you can read the first paragraph and a half at https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-you-want-renewable-energy-get-ready-to-dig-11565045328 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-you-want-renewable-energy-get-ready-to-dig-11565045328).
Sorry, Bart, I couldn't dig up a chart.
[/size][/size]
And let's not forget, all that for farms that only produce power 10% to, at most, 30% of the time.
Fascinating story in the Wall Street Journal this morning. "If You Want 'Renewable Energy,' Get Ready to Dig." An extract from the beginning of the article: "Building one wind turbine requires 900 tons of steel, 2,500 tons of concrete and 45 tons of plastic." It goes on to describe what it takes to build solar panels and goes into the problem caused by discarded solar panels. The article makes clear that an attempt to provide the world's power with what are called "renewable" sources would destroy the earth.
I couldn't provide a link to the article that'll let you read the whole thing without subscribing to WSJ online, but you can read the first paragraph and a half at https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-you-want-renewable-energy-get-ready-to-dig-11565045328.
Sorry, Bart, I couldn't dig up a chart.
Assuming you even tried digging, that's a shame. It is also hard to judge (without getting a subscription) if the opinion piece only focuses on the resources required to build, maintain, and decommission traditional wind-driven power generators. Does it compare that cost to that of running traditional utilities plants?
It would have shown you that while the production of a regular windturbine does consume resources (and provides a lot of jobs), the net result over the lifespan of such a device is positive, and that's not only if you look at the cost/benefit ratio. If you then look at the amount of carbon (and other) emissions that was avoided by running it (producing clean energy) instead of burning fossil fuel, the balance tips even more in favor of wind energy.
Also, there are different types of windmill designs (VAWT), more easy to maintain, and more efficient at lower wind-speeds (and thus usable in urbanized environments), and can be packed much closer together to create wind parks.
Cheers,
Bart
Every article that I have read that looks at real life data over the entire power supply chain (manufacturing, product of power, transportation of power, etc.) shows that the cost of wind/solar is considerably higher than other traditional power production.
Venerable oil baron T. Boone Pickens is giving up on oil – sort of. Less than 18 months ago, his fund launched an ETF tracking stocks of companies expected to benefit from any increase in Brent crude oil prices. But soon, BOON – the ticker of the NYSE Pickens Oil Response ETF – will be no more. Instead, it will be relaunched as RENW, offering exposure to stocks benefiting from the transition to toward “a low-carbon economy.”
It's time for us to give up on wind/solar and go all in on nuclear, otherwise our climate crisis will never be solved.
Hi Joe,
Maybe this will answer part of your questions:
Renewable Energy Will Be Consistently Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels By 2020, Report Claims
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2018/01/13/renewable-energy-cost-effective-fossil-fuels-2020/
The difficulty is that different countries offer different opportunities, so there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Countries that are closer to the equator than my country may have better opportunities for Solar based solutions, others will be able to use different kinds of hydropower generation, others (e.g. near the seashores) may have more opportunities for wind power generators. Lots of potential currently remains untapped, because fossil fuel is priced so low (not all cost to society is priced in). The moment Carbon taxes are introduced, things will change even more rapidly.
This entire field is changing rapidly, in favor of renewables.
Even Boone Pickens Is Falling Out of Love With Oil
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-07-30/boone-pickens-etf-change-to-renw-from-boon-says-it-all-about-oil
And there are more articles covering the switch to renewables, even by this oil dinosaur, e,g, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-29/t-boone-pickens-fund-to-replace-crude-oil-etf-with-renewables.
I'd agree nuclear (especially thorium-based technology) is part of the way forward, but not the only one, and certainly not yet in the coming decades.
We will need a mix of all sorts of power generation, but also for power storage. I wouldn't be surprised if Hydrogen based Powercells gain more traction, and as we switch away from natural gas for heating, the same pipeline infrastructure, with more suitable pressure stations, can be used for the transportation of Hydrogen gas for heating. The cost for transforming from natural gas to hydrogen gas, will be relatively low because the transportation infrastructure is already there. I've been told that the cost to modify the home heating system for a different type of gas is not very high either.
Cheers,
Bart
Hi Joe,To argue that renewables will get cheaper when the governments add a carbon tax has nothing to do with economics. Of course, if I add special taxes or give credits and rebates for renewables, the cost seems to go down. But it doesn;t really because someone is paying for those credits and rebates and taxes. Also, it's not a level playing field. It doesn't take a genius to realize that government favoritism influences what people buy or produce when government puts their thumb on the scale.
Maybe this will answer part of your questions:
Renewable Energy Will Be Consistently Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels By 2020, Report Claims
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2018/01/13/renewable-energy-cost-effective-fossil-fuels-2020/ (https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2018/01/13/renewable-energy-cost-effective-fossil-fuels-2020/)
The difficulty is that different countries offer different opportunities, so there is no one-size-fits-all solution. Countries that are closer to the equator than my country may have better opportunities for Solar based solutions, others will be able to use different kinds of hydropower generation, others (e.g. near the seashores) may have more opportunities for wind power generators. Lots of potential currently remains untapped, because fossil fuel is priced so low (not all cost to society is priced in). The moment Carbon taxes are introduced, things will change even more rapidly.
This entire field is changing rapidly, in favor of renewables.
Even Boone Pickens Is Falling Out of Love With Oil
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-07-30/boone-pickens-etf-change-to-renw-from-boon-says-it-all-about-oil (https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-07-30/boone-pickens-etf-change-to-renw-from-boon-says-it-all-about-oil)
And there are more articles covering the switch to renewables, even by this oil dinosaur, e,g, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-29/t-boone-pickens-fund-to-replace-crude-oil-etf-with-renewables (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-29/t-boone-pickens-fund-to-replace-crude-oil-etf-with-renewables).
I'd agree nuclear (especially thorium-based technology) is part of the way forward, but not the only one, and certainly not yet in the coming decades.
We will need a mix of all sorts of power generation, but also for power storage. I wouldn't be surprised if Hydrogen based Powercells gain more traction, and as we switch away from natural gas for heating, the same pipeline infrastructure, with more suitable pressure stations, can be used for the transportation of Hydrogen gas for heating. The cost for transforming from natural gas to hydrogen gas, will be relatively low because the transportation infrastructure is already there. I've been told that the cost to modify the home heating system for a different type of gas is not very high either.
Cheers,
Bart
No real data is provided in this article, only referenced.Joe, you're really hot to trot on nuclear. I agree that it might be the best. France seems to do well with them. Problem is NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard. How do we get past this at this point? The rules and regulations are so oppressive, the political obstacles so intense, that most producers are not interested. Or are they?
However, it seems that the numbers he is providing only take into account the actual cost to build the turbines and solar panels. It does not go into the cost of land (of which 500 times more is required to produce the same amount of energy), the cost of developing that excessively larger amount of land (with all of the concrete, metal, glass, etc. needed), the fact that in order to make this cheap the land needs to be really far from where the energy will be used requiring expensive long distance power lines, and then the cost of maintaining all of these things.
The article did also bring up having turbines (and other things) in the sea, which I guess would take away part of the cost of land, but did not go into the extra cost of building in a salt water and maintaining metal objects & parts in the significantly more corrosive saltwater environment.
Once again, having a 3 acre one-gigawatt nuclear power plant operating 90% of the time located close to a city center is a much better option, by leaps and bounds, then a 1500 acre wind/solar farm only producing energy, at most, 30% of the time located miles outside that city center needing long range power lines. We will eb much better off putting all of our effort into nuclear, and other clearly efficient energy solutions, then wasting our time on wind and solar.
Insofar as your reference to power storage, you just seem to not be reading up on the deficiencies of batteries. You always loose at least 20% of the power when you store it in a battery, but it could be as much as 40%. It is a much better option to just have a modern grid with a power supply that can be ramped up or down as needed to supply the grid then storing electricity to use it later.
You always loose at least 20% of the power when you store it in a battery, but it could be as much as 40%. It is a much better option to just have a modern grid with a power supply that can be ramped up or down as needed to supply the grid then storing electricity to use it later.
You'll loose also a lot of electricity in the transmission lines and transformers.
A short transfer from the solar roof panel to a large battery in the garage and from there to the microwave is much more appealing.
Both home installed roof solar and industrial produced solar or wind electricity require traditional fuels for backup. So the utility has to maintain or build new fossil plants for backup. All these costs will be passed on to consumers and businesses.
HOUSTON — For decades, elected leaders and corporate executives have chased a dream of independence from unstable or unfriendly foreign oil producers. Mission accomplished: Oil companies are producing record amounts of crude oil and natural gas in the United States and have become major exporters.
Yet the companies themselves are finding little to love about this seeming bonanza. With a global glut driving down prices, many are losing money and are staying afloat by selling assets and taking on debt.
The value of oil and gas stocks as a proportion of the S&P 500 over the last six years has dropped to about 4.6 percent, from 8.7 percent.
Yes, and in addition, there will be a surplus of solar energy produced during the summertime, which is better used for storage than by switching-off the panels. And storage is not only possible in traditional batteries, but it can also be in hydro-pumped or compressed-air or kinetic energy, or as heat in a basin (e.g. salt, or basalt), or for electrolysis to produce hydrogen gas.
Cheers,
Bart
Joe, you're really hot to trot on nuclear. I agree that it might be the best. France seems to do well with them. Problem is NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard. How do we get past this at this point? The rules and regulations are so oppressive, the political obstacles so intense, that most producers are not interested. Or are they?
Nothing new about that. And the fossil fuel industry has its own challenges:
U.S. Oil Companies Find Energy Independence Isn’t So Profitable
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/30/business/energy-environment/oil-companies-profit.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/30/business/energy-environment/oil-companies-profit.html)
In addition to that, the cost of shale oil production is much higher than suggested, and a lot of money is being lost. Guess who'll be paying for that ...
At least the devaluation of the Chinese currency, in reaction to Trump's Trade war, will reduce the cost of Chinese Solar panels even further...
Cheers,
Bart
You'll loose also a lot of electricity in the transmission lines and transformers.
A short transfer from the solar roof panel to a large battery in the garage and from there to the microwave is much more appealing.
Yes, and in addition, there will be a surplus of solar energy produced during the summertime, which is better used for storage than by switching-off the panels. And storage is not only possible in traditional batteries, but it can also be in hydro-pumped or compressed-air or kinetic energy, or as heat in a basin (e.g. salt, or basalt), or for electrolysis to produce hydrogen gas.
Cheers,
Bart
By getting young people to realize how much of a waste of time wind/solar is and how much misinformation has been spread around about nuclear. When young people like me start to come to their senses that (1) the world is not going to lower their power usage and (2) wind and solar will never provide enough energy without completely destroying the enviroment and (3) nuclear is the safest cleanest power source, we will start to invest in nuclear.
Until then, we are screwed.
Plus, this just goes back to your whole point of government picking winners and losers. We need policies that will actually work, not ones that make use feel better and do nothing.
Well, if the Democrats win the Presidency and Senate and keep the House in 2020, forget about anything BUT renewables. It will be Obama on steroids. The only hope is to convince America that nuclear IS like renewables. Clean, no CO2, no burning, etc. I think that's how it has to be sold.
On the other hand, if what happened to Germany happens to America, and the cost for electricity goes to 2 1/2 times what it is due to renewables, the public will demand government to fix the problem. When people's pocketbooks are involved, people get real interested. Nothing focuses a person's attention like the hangman's noose. When Americans have to shut off their air conditioners to save money on utilities, something German don;t use nearly as much, they'll get more than hot under the collar. Nuclear could then become popular. Who knows? It's going to be interesting.
Sure, for residential usage, on sunny days of course in suburbia where single family homes flourish. But how about in the cities, with apartment and condo buildings, or commercial and manufacturing where there is no where the amount of roof space to even come close to producing what is needed. Guess what, your approach does not work here, not in the least, and this is the trend the majority of the world is moving towards.Never mind cheap land. The NYS project I mentioned above is going into the sea off of Long Island. In order to appease Long Islanders so they don;t have to look at ugly wind generators, they'll be built 20-30 miles off shore so they can't be seen. Can you imagine the cost of undersea power transmission? What about the cost for boats, ships, and helicopters and their crews to transport workers and equipment not only for construction, but for maintenance that is required forever? So beside the $3200 per family, the cost for backup conventional generation, you also have the hugely expensive cost to maintain the system. What do offshore maintenance people earn compared to a guy who can drive to the site in a van? Of course the politicians and supporters of energy are blind to these things so enamored they are with renewables. So these issues will be ignored and the price will be paid by the luckless and ignorant public. Hello Germany.
So, the fact of the matter is that if we want to power our world with wind and solar, we will need massive energy farms. These massive farms will need to be built on cheap land, which will be many times further away then what your post implies converntual power plants would be. Which mean even more energy will be lost in your use of wind/solar by transferring the energy on even longer power lines then my use of nuclear, since nuclear takes up considerably less amount of land and can be built economically a lot closer to cities.
The problem with your post is that you are using a prior generations' wishes of a good housing (suburbia) and applying it to the current generations' wishes, but only the current generation wants to live in cities with considerably less roof sqf per capita.
Never mind cheap land. The NYS project I mentioned above is going into the sea off of Long Island. In order to appease Long Islanders so they don;t have to look at ugly wind generators, they'll be built 20-30 miles off shore so they can't be seen. Can you imagine the cost of undersea power transmission? What about the cost for boats, ships, and helicopters and their crews to transport workers and equipment not only for construction, but for maintenance that is required forever? So beside the $3200 per family, the cost for backup conventional generation, you also have the hugely expensive cost to maintain the system. What do offshore maintenance people earn compared to a guy who can drive to the site in a van? Of course the politicians and supporters of energy are blind to these things so enamored they are with renewables. So these issues will be ignored and the price will be paid by the luckless and ignorant public. Hello Germany.
I know, Alan.When I was in Home Depot, I got hit up by a salesman working for a local solar company. Apparently they have a deal with the store. So I investigated putting in solar. Well, it just so happens, my house is extremely efficient energywise. I think I mentioned it to you in an earlier post. So the bottom line it didn;t pay for me to do it. But I checked into it. And the more I checked, the more I learned how may problems you are faced with. For example, roof tiles have to be replaced after 15-20 years. You have to uninstall the panels and re-install them. That costs extra money.
And these are the real life operating costs all of the wind/solar fans completely ignore.
At least with a normal damn, the water is still flowing, but with this idea, it would just be stagnent and stored, not being used. At some point in time, a drought or famine would kill this idea.
My neighbour installed a solar array recently. It's about 30X50 feet. It's currently pumping about 8kW directly into the grid all day long, for which he gets credit from the local utility. He draws down that credit in winter when he heats his house with an electrically powered heat pump. He has effectively zero Canadian Winter heating costs for the foreseeable future. Ten year payback on his capital investment. After that, it's all gravy.
"Stagnent (sic) ? Really? All water is ancient. It doesn't rot. It just is. "Not being used" is just silly. And what's a "normal damn" (sic)
British Columbia, where I live, has lots of falling water. It rains here. The mountain reservoirs store vast amounts of energy during the spring runoff and release that energy via hydro power all summer. About 50,000 gWh annually. That is a LOT of energy. The interior of BC is effectively a colossal battery. We profitably sell this energy to Arizona where they use it to cool their shopping malls because it's 35C down there.
I pay about 10c a kWh for electricity. (converted to USD) That's the going rate here. Anybody wanna buy our "stagnent" water?
Before Alan chimes in with a few "whattabouts", yes, the reservoirs do flood some pristine valleys. Fortunately, we have lots of them. The reservoirs can also impede fish reproduction. We're working on it. We have hatcheries. In some cases, they flooded farm land, but many of them are in wilderness. Sports fishermen and boaters love 'em.
In short, solar and hydro can be very efficient and clean sources of endlessly renewable power.
The silver lining is that our leftists always like to look to France, and, with electricity at least, France is doing it right. They get 95% of their electricity from nuclear and have one of the lowest cost per KWH in Europe. The caveat though is that nuclear takes a large investment, so large that only big companies can make it.
Do you realize the vast amount of fresh water that would need to be stored in order to get a decent amount of eletricty for usage during the off season.Yes. I do. I can see it. I cross it on a ferry. I swim in it. I drink it. I boat on it. I eat fish from it. It's called a "natural resource".
Given the fact that fresh water is a valuable commodity, it would be absolutely foolish to let it sit not used for a long period of time.We are not foolish. We use it quickly. It's stored for a few months.
Fresh water is needed to keep us alive, to keep farm animals alive, to irrigate crops, etc. Our whole civilization is based upon the quest to find potable water. To choose not to use it just because we need it during the off season to generate power when there are plenty of other power sources that we could use is stupid to say the least.So, you'd rather we just let it run into the ocean?
... not feel the negative effects of locking up a valuable resource is asinine, especially in places short of fresh water, which there are plenty of.It's not "locked up". It's stored briefly, then used. Managed, in other words.
What you are suggesting would not allow access to the water stored except during period of low electricity production, which would limit access in a fashion not in use with our reservoirs now.I can't make sense of that statement, frankly. The reservoir fills during spring runoff and is released throughout the year until it re-fills the next spring. It's available for irrigation and other uses year round.
The only problem is that there are very limited locations in the world where this type of power is feasible.Not true. There are many locations that are under-utilizing hydro power. There are many others that are using it wisely. Bhutan, for example has but one major export. Hydro power. To India. Run-of-the-river power solutions don't even require a reservoir.
Insofar as you selling your power to AZ, that is just a fairy tale. The fact is that you loose energy when you transport it, and transporting it from BC to AZ would really decrease the amount of energy. This is not even something worth thinking about.
Last, your statement that wind and solar are efficient sources of power is currently being completely negated by the real life fact that Germany has seen it energy prices rise 2.5 times since it started down the wind/solar rabbit whole, and I should add that their CO2 emissions have not decreased at all.
So, once again, wind and solar are nothing but fairy tales, and the sooner we start putting all our efforts into nuclear, the better!
Last, your statement that wind and solar are efficient sources of power is currently being completely negated by the real life fact that Germany has seen it energy prices rise 2.5 times since it started down the wind/solar rabbit whole, and I should add that their CO2 emissions have not decreased at all.
And, again to short circuit the inevitable cheap shots: they no longer kill many birds. The birds learned.
Last, your statement that wind and solar are efficient sources of power is currently being completely negated by the real life fact that Germany has seen it energy prices rise 2.5 times since it started down the wind/solar rabbit whole, and I should add that their CO2 emissions have not decreased at all.
Once again, having a 3 acre one-gigawatt nuclear power plant operating 90% of the time located close to a city center is a much better option, by leaps and bounds, then a 1500 acre wind/solar farm only producing energy, at most, 30% of the time located miles outside that city center needing long range power lines. We will eb much better off putting all of our effort into nuclear, and other clearly efficient energy solutions, then wasting our time on wind and solar.
1500 acre requirement for a solar farm is indeed a huge cost, but if we'll start using the idle roof spaces for solar panels, that wouldn't require buying land. Roof tiles with integral solar collectors could be longer lasting than asphalt shingles and possibly also more suitable in regions with heavy snowfall.
Can you provide a source to support the claim that Germany has not reduced its CO2 emissions? This claim has been made here many times but I don't recall seeing any evidence for it.
Why Aren't Renewables Decreasing Germany's Carbon Emissions? (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/10/10/why-arent-renewables-decreasing-germanys-carbon-emissions/#7612886068e1)
Looks like I have not been following the latest data though because:
German greenhouse gas emissions fall for first time in four years (https://www.dw.com/en/german-greenhouse-gas-emissions-fall-for-first-time-in-four-years/a-48167150)
But one year does not necessarily mean anything for the long term
Yes. I do. I can see it. I cross it on a ferry. I swim in it. I drink it. I boat on it. I eat fish from it. It's called a "natural resource".
We are not foolish. We use it quickly. It's stored for a few months.
So, you'd rather we just let it run into the ocean?
It's not "locked up". It's stored briefly, then used. Managed, in other words.
I can't make sense of that statement, frankly. The reservoir fills during spring runoff and is released throughout the year until it re-fills the next spring. It's available for irrigation and other uses year round.
Not true. There are many locations that are under-utilizing hydro power. There are many others that are using it wisely. Bhutan, for example has but one major export. Hydro power. To India. Run-of-the-river power solutions don't even require a reservoir.
So, I'm making up that "fairy tale? That, in fact we don't sell power into the US? Tell that to the residents of BC, Manitoba, Quebec and Newfoundland, all of whom earn substantial revenue from that "fairy tale".
As for "loosing" energy in transport, line losses for high voltage AC power distribution average about 1% Even less with HVDC.
How many of your Nucs would be required to generate 50,000 gigawatt hours of power? BC alone does this continuously, silently and with zero emissions of any kind. And that's just from one little area. The eastern Canada hydro projects dwarf ours.
I said nothing about wind. I referenced solar and hydro, since I'm familiar with those systems. For wind-based fairy tales, I suggest you instruct the people of Washington State, Oregon, Texas, Oklahoma et al on their stupidity. They have invested hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars in wind farms. There are hundreds of new wind turbines in Oregon alone, all of which appear to be working quite well, thank you.
And, again to short circuit the inevitable cheap shots: they no longer kill many birds. The birds learned.
Indeed - their CO2 emission has been falling generally since 1990, so, whatever the question of cost, it is not true to claim that Germany's CO2 emissions have not been cut, so I hope you and others will refrain from perpetuating this ... err .. terminological inexactitude.
(https://www.cleanenergywire.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/images/article/2018/10/20180326-uba-german-greenhousegasemissions1990-2017.png?itok=jzrPGXfH)
Yes, but the green revolution has only be happening for the last 10 years. Citing data going back to 1990 (30 years) does nothing to support the need for more wind/solar.
You also missed the part of the articles that stated in no uncertain terms that Germany will miss it's target. So providing a graph that also shows targets as if they will happen is meaningless as well.
No, I didn't "miss" anything. What I said is that the claim made here, by you and others, that Germany's CO2 emissions have not been falling is false, as this graph clearly shows. Hopefully we won't see it repeated.
Over the period in time of Germany going full in on wind/solar, which has only been the last 10 years,
Another false claim
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/877deb6b597b942ad1f544d6de9fec54.png)
Jeremyrh, JoeKitchen is asserting "alternate facts".
You're new graph clearly shows that the increase in wind/solar did not start until 2004/2005, so lat 15 years. Sorry for stating 10 instead of 15.
However, the majority in the decrease of CO2 your first graph showed happened between 1990 and 2005, outside the time period of wind/solar being ramped up. So, point in fact, the first 15 years in the CO2 decrease graph means nothing to this conversation.
The graph clearly shows that the increase began in 2002 (from 2.9% to 3.2%). If we are down to a situation where people are just making mistakes about figures that are right in from of their eyes, then there is no point in trying to have a more profound or nuanced discussion. (Bart - this illustrates why I am not bothering any more with this forum.)
In any case, whatever the overall CO2 emission figures, obviously they would have been higher if there had been no substitution of coal by renewables, so that is an irrelevance.
Lets, for the sake of argument assume that increasing wind/solar may decrease emissions. In theory, I will agree this is the case, although in reality it has not been shown yet.
Lets just think about the total land mass needed for Germany's power needs if produced from wind/solar.
Come on now, seriously, 2.9 to 3.3 is a minuscule increase. No real progress starts until 2004/2005.
Think about what it would take to show that. What sort of controlled experiment would you ask for?
I don't have any dog in that fight. Maybe there is no solution, maybe offshore wind, tides, whatever. My point here is just to ask that people stop inventing "facts" to support their case, and I'm sorry that you were the one that strolled into the propellers, as you are one of the more thoughtful forum participants.
Take a look at the red bars on the first graph (energy industries) - there is a peak at 2004 and a 20% decline thereafter.
I'll take that as a compliment and thank you for provide the data on wind/solar increase in Germany.
Insofar as your first statement, I am not asking for a controlled experiment. Just data that shows an actual decrease in CO2 over a period of time when wind/solar was increased by a decent amount that can not be clearly attributed to something else, like a very mild winter.
A decrease in energy prices would be good too, since that is the only way you will get the overall public to adopt the technology (regardless of what it is). Wind and solar sounds good, but people really vote with their wallets. Even if wind and solar decrease CO2, if the price goes up too much it will never be adopted.
I would assume the majority of that decrease is due to what caused the decreases from 1990 to 2008/2009. More then likely this would be an increase in energy efficiencies of buildings, machinery and appliances.You answered my question before I asked it. I should have realized it since I was involved in energy conservation project years ago. The switchover to more efficient HVAC and lighting systems, better energy standards for appliances, TV, and other electrical and electronic equipment, etc. The main thrust started after the 1973 oil crisis. Also, cars became more efficient, less fuel required per mile.
Remember, architecture started going big on LEED building design in the 90s, which really help on decreasing energy consumption. The USGBC was created in 1993 and LEED certification was introduced in 1998 and formalized in 2007. However, even prior to this, the trend was towards better building and appliance design.
Certainly a good thing, but nothing to do with wind and solar. The data that matters for this conversation are during the years of the largest increase in wind/solar production, which show a stagnation.
You answered my question before I asked it. I should have realized it since I was involved in energy conservation project years ago. The switchover to more efficient HVAC and lighting systems, better energy standards for appliances, TV, and other electrical and electronic equipment, etc. The main thrust started after the 1973 oil crisis. Also, cars became more efficient, less fuel required per mile.
What was surprising to the experts was that it didn't go down a lot more considering Germany uses renewables to produce 40% of their electricity.The chart Jeremyrh posted shows renewables grew to 13.1% in 2017, not 40%, but don't let facts get in the way of a good story.
The chart Jeremyrh posted shows renewables grew to 13.1% in 2017, not 40%, but don't let facts get in the way of a good story.
Ummmm .... ummmmm ....The article says that there are differing forces at work. For example, although more production is from renewables, increasing population, the selling of that electricity to other countries, and industrial production would raise the CO2 numbers for Germany. On the other hand, higher costs for electricity and warmer weather reduces the amount of electricity used lowering CO2 production. I think a better chart would be one the compares on the basis of percentage the CO2 produced vs total and carbon bases KWH production on an annual basis. Shipment of electricity to foreign countries would have to be eliminated from those figures as they will distort the final percentages.
Renewables in Germany close in on 40% of total generation (https://energytransition.org/2018/11/renewables-in-germany/)
Ummmm .... ummmmm ....Isn't it tedious when you can find "facts" all over the map. Hard to know what to believe.
Renewables in Germany close in on 40% of total generation (https://energytransition.org/2018/11/renewables-in-germany/)
Isn't it tedious when you can find "facts" all over the map. Hard to know what to believe.
Yes, yes.Yes, you really have to fact check every post. One of the benefits to Germany (and other Western European countries) of renewables is there is that much less oil and natural gas they have to import from Russia.
I added to this post, but I guess after you quoted me in your responce. As I said there, I cant really figure out where they got this number. All the articles using this figure are not supplying the data or showing the calculations that went into it.
I really find it dubious, especially given the 13% figure Jeremy shared and just considering the shear amount of land that would need to be developed to get to 40%. I was just merely posting this article to show where Alan got his number from. Also, I wrote that post in a condescending manner and should not have; I apologize for that.
The article says that there are differing forces at work. For example, although more production is from renewables, increasing population, the selling of that electricity to other countries, and industrial production would raise the CO2 numbers for Germany. On the other hand, higher costs for electricity and warmer weather reduces the amount of electricity used lowering CO2 production. I think a better chart would be one the compares on the basis of percentage the CO2 produced vs total and carbon bases KWH production on an annual basis. Shipment of electricity to foreign countries would have to be eliminated from those figures as they will distort the final percentages.
A little off from what you posted, but still interesting.
I forget where, but in the last day looking up more information on this, I found a rather interesting stat.
Since it is the case that typically when wind and solar produce energy the most is also when we need the least amount of electricity, creating a surplus, the market value of this extra electricity drops almost to zero since no one really needs it. So trying to sell the surplus of energy becomes impossible without taking a loss.
If government were to get out of the "renewable" energy picture, the whole illusion would collapse overnight.
I seem to recall there are places where the utilities are paying customers to use their electricity at cheap prices because they have to dump the extra KWH somewheres. With carbon, they just turn down the generators. Not sure why they can't shut off solar as well.Alan, You have complained that no one ever talks about the positives of climate change. Yet with renewable energy, all you seem to want to talk about is the negatives. It strikes me that you only want to take contrarian opinions.
The other issue is that government forces utilities to buy extra solar electricity produced by homes and others. So they have carbon fuel plants sitting idle. Meanwhile, the costs to maintain and run those carbon based plants have to be paid by someone. They'll be needed at night and when the wind doesn't blow. So they pass the costs on to those people who don't have renewable ability and must buy from the grid at higher prices. So homes with solar pay less and those without pay more, usually the poorer people who can't afford solar or live in the cities. Renewables unfairly hit those least able to afford higher electricity costs.
Alan, You have complained that no one ever talks about the positives of climate change. Yet with renewable energy, all you seem to want to talk about is the negatives. Doesn't seem entirely consistent to me.
However, subsidizing a product with our tax money and raising the price of necessities like electricity for little gain does not make sense. The concept is great and I'm all in favor of breathing better. But let's be honest about what it really costs and the how much it really contributes to a better environment. Maybe we should put our money in nuclear? Or something else.Are there no benefits in the Tax Code for the oil and gas industry? Should those be eliminated as well?
It is what the LULA Debating Society is all about.We'd only fight over Robert's Rules.
Open to all members of the public.
Maybe we should adopt the rules of conduct becoming of a gentleman.
Robert's Rules of Order are probably too tedious for this group.
Are there no benefits in the Tax Code for the oil and gas industry? Should those be eliminated as well?
Are there no benefits in the Tax Code for the oil and gas industry? Should those be eliminated as well?Yes. The government should not play favorites, Unfortunately it does it all the time. Only in war or during special situations should we allow differing rules. Tax credits for renewables is another boondoggle as is encouraging corn farming to be sold for required methanol in gasoline, another boondoggle. . Years ago, the was an Oil Depletion Allowance, that was stopped. The concept was, that since oil from the ground which could not be replaced made that land less valuable, the oil companies could write off an allowance in their taxes for that depletion. Nuts! The oil industry should follow the same tax rules any other business gets.
i think you meant ethanol.Yeah. Methanol would attack the softer tissue of your body as well. But I still wouldn't try to drink it even though the gas has ethanol. :)
methanol would attack many of the softer components in the fuel system.
Since it is the case that typically when wind and solar produce energy the most is also when we need the least amount of electricity, creating a surplus, the market value of this extra electricity drops almost to zero since no one really needs it. So trying to sell the surplus of energy becomes impossible without taking a loss.
There is a whole school of thought that goes, roughly, "we should ruthlessly shut down any attempts to science our way out of any problems, because that's just a waste of money and time. After all, mankind is resilient and clever, and we will science our way out of these problems eventually."
This argument always strikes me as bizarre.
we engineers design systems based on facts. Otherwise it is a waste of resources.
This pretty much shows that the tax breaks oil and gas get are substantionally smaller then for wind and solar.
Debunking Democrats' claims about fossil fuel tax breaks (https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/448794-debunking-democrats-claims-about-fossil-fuel-tax-breaks)
And even so, it is still more expensive directly to the consumer to get electricity from renewables.
From the article,
"According to CRS, “In 2017, the value of federal tax-related support for the energy sector was estimated to be $17.8 billion. Of this, $4.6 billion (25.8%) can be attributed to tax incentives supporting fossil fuels. Tax-related support for renewables was an estimated $11.6 billion in 2017 (or 65.2% of total tax-related support for energy). The remaining tax-related support went toward nuclear energy, efficiency measures, and alternative technology vehicles.”
But there’s more to the story, because fossil fuels deliver vastly more energy return than renewables. “In 2017, fossil fuels accounted for 77.7% of U.S. primary energy production. The remaining primary energy production is attributable to renewable energy and nuclear electric resources, with shares of 12.8% and 9.5%, respectively,” according to CRS. Wind and solar power only accounted for 3.6 percentage points of total energy production.
So, 65.2% of all tax breaks in the energy sector are going towards wind/solar that only produces 12.8% of all electricity.
You know what, percentages are so hard to think about for the normal person. Lets restate this in fractions. About 2/3s of all tax breaks for energy goes to a sector that only produces about an 1/8 of the total amount of electricity.
So, sure taking away tax breaks for oil/gas would increase prices a bit, but not nearly as much as it would for wind/solar.
This only touches on the direct subsidies. It doesn't take into account all the extra cost (both monetary and environmental/health) to cope with the negative effects of extraction and emissions.
Cheers,
Bart
I am not really sure who this is meant for, but I would say, yes this a good thing.exactly my point in support of what you and a few others have been saying.
But when people show a product but dont show the data, I have to wonder why. I want to see real figures; what does it really do.
There is nothing wrong with asking questions and asking to be shown the numbers.
No, Joe, you're using exactly the argument I outlined.
Renewable energy sources, like all engineering solutions under active development, are a moving target. Energy storage systems are a moving target. You can't just say "well, current solutions are not a perfect answer, so we should just stop working on them" and expect anyone to pay much attention to the next things you say.
Making blanket statements like "All of real life, and I mean all of it" is remarkably unconvincing as well. Protesteth too much, and all that.
Every sounds good if you don't supply any figures. I want to see figures, and promising ones at that. Until then, you ain't going to convince anyone except the ideologues, who will buy anything.
while not really decreasing CO2.
I agree Joe,
But one thing is clear, not trying will not solve a single issue.
Sofar, the more promising near term solutions are pointing in the direction of Hydrogen gas as an efficient way to transport stored energy. That energy can be created from (surplus) renewable energy. The conversion process is not very efficient yet, so surplus energy that would otherwise be wasted is the best candidate to supply the energy, but if the cost of generating energy drops further, then even the conversion losses become less expensive.
It is more efficient to store heat as heat, with little or no conversion losses, but when the costs keep falling then conversion for storage and reconversion to electricity becomes more viable. Technology constantly improves efficiency, so energy production and storage capacity both improve while cost keeps dropping. Once the fossil fuel alternatives become more expensive, and they are already, the free source of energy (solar/wind/hydro) cannot be supplied cheaper going forward. Improving efficiency will reduce the break-even period even further.
There is still a lot of room for improvement, but it will at least already buy us some time and save money that would be required to repair the damage that fossil fuel creates. We do not have the luxury of being able to 'wait' another 30 years for Thorium reactors to become the next step.
Cheers,
Bart
There was a group of blacksmiths having a brew at a pub in 1905. They started to discuss those new-fangled automobiles. Have you seen one yet?, one guy said. They're noisy, smelly, go too slow, and need someone on board who knows how to repair one every hour or so. They can't travel on our muddy roads and the tires burst all the time. And they scare all the horses. And what's worse, they need gasoline. Where can you get gasoline? What do people think is going to happen, that we're going to dig up oil from deep holes all over the planet, refine it in huge factories and ship it to corner stores in every city for people to buy when they need it? That's going to cost a king's ransom, no one has the money to build all that. It's a joke, it'll never happen.
(This story may be apocryphal.)
Can you suggest a way that this could be physically possible?
What is so delightful about all these questions is that all of us have beliefs, but none of us really know.
Belief, in general, precedes rationalization. But rationalization almost invariably supports the initial belief. Sure, our ideas change, and we like to think it's because we've carefully researched things and the facts have changed our minds, but this is a delusion. What happened was that the zeitgeist surrounding us changed. Either our social/family circle changed, or the set of things our family and friends actually believe has evolved and changed. Change in "what everyone knows" does occur, but it in general does not occur within a single person, as an event within that person.
It is a gestalt that emerges from the community. Well-positioned media can, with a delicate touch, introduce gradual change. From The Atlantic to Fox and Friends, media manipulates our ideas, and we think we're being rational.
Even an apparently simple question like "Is the carbon footprint of Wind Power positive, negative, or neutral?" is fractally complex in several dimensions, and admits nothing even slightly resembling a factual answer. Further, it isn't even a relevant question. The relevant question would be "If we reconfigured our society around wind and solar power, could such a society simultaneously resemble our current one, while being carbon-footprint-negative?" which is a vastly more complex and unknowable question than the first one.
Basically, we believe the things we believe because they fit in with the world view we hold because of stuff our Dad told us.
I certainly believe the things I believe, but I am not so foolish as to imagine they're factual. I think my after-the-fact rationalizations are pretty solid, but there's no denying that I almost never rationalize away a previously held belief. Either my Dad was eerily right about everything, or I've probably got some stuff wrong. I just don't know which stuff.
LOL, this apocryphal story is at the very beginning of the automobile industry, but with wind/solar ...
Arguably wind power production has been around since the Dark Ages, but insofar as producing electricity the first wind turbine was introduced in 1850. Solar cells were first discovered in 1839 by French scientist Edmond Becquerel. So, both industries have been around long enough where an objective historical view can be had.
There was a group of blacksmiths having a brew at a pub in 1905. They started to discuss those new-fangled automobiles. Have you seen one yet?, one guy said. They're noisy, smelly, go too slow, and need someone on board who knows how to repair one every hour or so. They can't travel on our muddy roads and the tires burst all the time. And they scare all the horses. And what's worse, they need gasoline. Where can you get gasoline? What do people think is going to happen, that we're going to dig up oil from deep holes all over the planet, refine it in huge factories and ship it to corner stores in every city for people to buy when they need it? That's going to cost a king's ransom, no one has the money to build all that. It's a joke, it'll never happen.
(This story may be apocryphal.)
The point is that arguing any of this crap with "data and evidence" is a lost cause. It's not even hard to conduct an analysis based on hard facts and evidence that produces whatever result you like, because these questions are fractally complex. Vested interests on all sides of these issues have produced millions of words of such analysis, complete with charts and graphs, each study produces, to nobody's surprise at all, precisely the result most favorable to the relevant vested interest.
You'd think we'd have learned something from the extensive scientific research proving that cigarettes are harmless, but apparently not.
Neither you nor I truly has the capacity to thoroughly evaluate any of this material, and if we did we're use our skills and knowledge to produce yet another imperfect study which, to nobody's surprise at all, produced the result we wanted. So, it turns into a war of "well, there's THIS study that.." and "aha! That study foolishly assumed..." and so on. It does not end, and it does not make even a slight feint in the direction of truth. It's just masturbation.
I don't actually know what the way forward is, it is pretty disheartening to watch.
It was done by Private Industry not government.
Sure, but at what point do you stop and start trying something else.
Insofar a hydrogen, I agree, it looks promising, so long as it can become efficient. Remember, splitting water requires so much energy that we dont use it and nearly all commercial hydrogen comes from fossil fuels.
Maybe. But advances in materials science may produce great changes than we think now, and they're not easy to predict. Not that long ago, photographers in pubs were saying that we'd never have full-frame digital sensors at reasonable prices. :)
This discussion is taking place in an era where, for some reason, lots of people have convinced themselves that oil prices will remain low forever (or at least till we die), and that alternate technologies will not improve to any great extent in either generation or storage capacity. Continent-wide electricity generation will continue to comprise many modes of generation. Solar and wind will work where they work and will not work where they don't work. I am not sure I understand why we're having such a vehement debate, it's as if someone's ideology was at stake. We choose appropriate engineering solutions, that's what we always do, with some trials and errors along the way. If oil ever hits $200 per barrel, everything will change. When have things not changed?
It's not as if our governments are bankrupting themselves to force alternate sources down our throats while starving Big Oil. So far as I can tell, Big Oil is doing fine. As for the complaints that governments shouldn't be interfering in this, I tend to ignore that because people change their minds very easily on that when it suits their own wallet. (Just check out all the tax subsidies for pro sports. I bet if you took a survey, everyone of those team owners calls themselves free-market capitalists.) The suitability and scalability of alternate sources need to be investigated and government is best placed to do that kind of long-term research. No one else will. So a few jurisdictions implement solar and wind and in 25 years we'll look back and figure what went wrong and what went right.
And yes, you're probably right about nuclear energy. So let that industry do its own marketing, but my gut tells me that they're going to have a difficult uphill struggle. A culture has emerged that believes in magical thinking, where objective data and facts don't seem to exist anymore. We created this monster, now we have to lie in bed with it, to mangle a metaphor.
The point about the cigarette studies was that you can make a study that proves whatever you like. You'd think people would be a lot less trusting. I guess people ARE less trusting, but they still tend to trust the studies that purport to prove whatever it is that they believe, and to deny the results of the others.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
I agree, and a simple litmus test is when commercial companies start investing in production units (they may start investing during research already, but that doesn't guarantee success).
This is the current real time situation in the Netherlands regarding wind production:
https://windstats.nl/statistieken/
The cost of these installations is dropping, so newer installations have a reduced break-even period (and/or more output over its life), and the latest (sea-based) windpark consessions are totally without subsidies. That's a signal to me that the proposition is financially viable.
Another interesting practical statistic is that newer placements have an increasing tip height (higher windspeeds at higher altitude).
Well, nothing tried, is nothing learned.
In my town, a test is being prepared together with the Energy Agency in charge of the network to transform natural gas lines to deliver hydrogen gas instead in a part of the municipality. That will be an interesting learning curve. It's an interesting location, in a foresty area not suitable for wind power generation, and at our approx. 52-degree latitude solar energy is not an optimal solution. Solar is an excellent complementary source with a 10-year payback period, at current energy prices. During the summer period, individual homeowners are selling their electricity surplus back to the energy company.
City buses and an increasing number of transportation companies, are converting to (hydrogen fuel cell) electric vehicles to reduce city emissions, as diesel engines are banned. Things are moving in the right direction, and not just because it makes economic sense.
Cheers,
Bart
I just want to solve climate change as fast as possible, but also don't want to see the environment destroyed from clear cutting for wind/solar farms. This is why I am so passionate about it.
It is just all the data shows nuclear plants are better than energy farms at both, so why bother with wind/solar farms.
Insofar as solar panels on roofs, sure, sounds good. Until you figure out it is twice as expensive as producing electricity on solar farms which are 4 times as expensive to produce energy than nuclear, so solar panels are 8 time (3 stops) more expensive then nuclear. I just feel it is a waste of money.
Like Enron? Or AIG? Leyman Brothers? :)No like Ford. They helped create the auto industry and also created an effective assembly line. And FOrd raised their employees salaries above what the rest of the country was paying without "minimum wage" laws. Also, Ford did not take a dime from the government like General Motors and others did in 2009 because the latter's unions and the companies needed to be bailed out.
I agree, and a simple litmus test is when commercial companies start investing in production units (they may start investing during research already, but that doesn't guarantee success).NYC already has 800 of its 5800 buses operating on natural gas LNG. Some of these 800 buses will be switched to renewable methane which comes from decomposing garbage New Yorkers throw out in our dumps. As an aside, most of the latest standards for pollution in all the world's cars was imposed by the USA (mainly California). Just to point out the even without Paris, America is at the leading edge of reducing pollution and making energy have less impact on the environment. Frankly, if government got out the way and stopped picking favorites that they subsidize, private industry would help move us to the most efficient and practical saving the most money yet providing the best technology to reduce emission of CO2 and pollutants.
This is the current real time situation in the Netherlands regarding wind production:
https://windstats.nl/statistieken/ (https://windstats.nl/statistieken/)
The cost of these installations is dropping, so newer installations have a reduced break-even period (and/or more output over its life), and the latest (sea-based) windpark consessions are totally without subsidies. That's a signal to me that the proposition is financially viable.
Another interesting practical statistic is that newer placements have an increasing tip height (higher windspeeds at higher altitude).
Well, nothing tried, is nothing learned.
In my town, a test is being prepared together with the Energy Agency in charge of the network to transform natural gas lines to deliver hydrogen gas instead in a part of the municipality. That will be an interesting learning curve. It's an interesting location, in a foresty area not suitable for wind power generation, and at our approx. 52-degree latitude solar energy is not an optimal solution. Solar is an excellent complementary source with a 10-year payback period, at current energy prices. During the summer period, individual homeowners are selling their electricity surplus back to the energy company.
City buses and an increasing number of transportation companies, are converting to (hydrogen fuel cell) electric vehicles to reduce city emissions, as diesel engines are banned. Things are moving in the right direction, and not just because it makes economic sense.
Cheers,
Bart
Alright, alright, you got me.Even if we were able to release all the pertinent facts without tainting them with spin, you'd still be faced with "feelings" and "emotions". For example, how much money should be spent on cancer research vs. reducing pollution? How mush should we spend on each? There are limited resources for everything we want to do. WE all draw a line in these matters. For example, should you install 3 smoke detector in your home or 6? Well, 6 seems like it would protect your family more, and it will. But the marginal percentage of safety let's say 5% is a decision you make in your gut. You may want the extra money required for going out to dinner or buying a new pair of shoes for your kids. These are all feeling type decisions that can't be quantified with statistics. A government is faced with a similar situation. Where should tax money be spent? We fight about these things all the time.
I'll agree some people, and, sometimes, many people, will choose to ignore the evidence that disagrees with their already determined "truths."
I'm also for nuclear plants, but a few solar panels on an existing house won't harm the environment or kill the birds, so why to denigrate them? Every bit helps.
I'm also for nuclear plants, but a few solar panels on an existing house won't harm the environment or kill the birds, so why to denigrate them? Every bit helps.Solar helps the individual homeowner reduce their cost for energy. But from a societal standpoint, the advantages are questionable.
I'm also for nuclear plants, but a few solar panels on an existing house won't harm the environment or kill the birds, so why to denigrate them? Every bit helps.Les, before you consider solar, you should have your house surveyed to see where the energy deficiencies are. You may find that upgrading insulation and installing double pane windows will save you more money on heating and cooling than adding solar. Those things should make your house more valuable when you sell it. My house is so efficient insulation wise (it's relatively new), that it doesn't pay to install solar, even with rebates and tax incentives. Also, you have to look at things like: are you using electric to heat or natural gas? It's a lot cheaper to heat with gas. So if you have electric heat and/or electric cooking, the value of solar goes up.
It was done by Private Industry not government.
As an aside, most of the latest standards for pollution in all the world's cars was imposed by the USA (mainly California). Just to point out the even without Paris, America is at the leading edge of reducing pollution and making energy have less impact on the environment.So, government intervention is good.
Frankly, if government got out the way and stopped picking favorites that they subsidize, private industry would help move us to the most efficient and practical saving the most money yet providing the best technology to reduce emission of CO2 and pollutants.No, wait, government intervention is bad.
I suggest you investigate the history of government/military involvement in the fossil fuel industry more closely.State your point about them if you have a point to make.
So, government intervention is good.Yes some government rules help. The can maintain level playing fields. They provide a court system that allow trust between businesses and customers and a place to resolve differences. They can provide standards like the aforementioned car pollution or building codes for construction. But these things can become oppressive. There has to be a balance.
No, wait, government intervention is bad.
State your point about them if you have a point to make.
For the most part, free markets and private enterprise provide the best results with better products and lower costs.
Nobody denies that climate changes. It's been changing for billions of years.
I just want to solve climate change as fast as possible, but also don't want to see the environment destroyed from clear cutting for wind/solar farms. This is why I am so passionate about it.
I can't imagine why you insist on pointing out the "clear cutting" for wind and solar. Any of the wind or solar installations I've personally seen have required precisely zero clear cutting.
This image shows the estimated land area required in North Africa to generate enough power for the world, the EU or for Germany. Zero clear cutting.
It will require some transmission hardware, but we know how to do that already. HVDC, remember?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertec
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/fb1Mqd_0W6Hposdz-fmmNJ9R5KACxmZBVdyZYbRCg46g47L62REM3Qn1cX05nfxg0DVEowmLAgX7t1ir0wv8hYzS4B9r_KOtHJs0mFR564DWpadwyJrlaQCW8hxFds4AOrfCI-MWUTDVrWiQesNK8upkh5KltBtAxh9MfUegF8edCwcAe1joMmDoxlVsdka4kaZ8vReZORXqopqOWAmKTmYxyY21M_MVriRwPbKosjtTDAL3-IF0TCCFDGimneJaqnwX_64bAVCXn_VPUNLKRx9IyqteaUMn6fyCaDMpiBCvaTLZ8i4f-Y809JCcWulNxUXKtS3vJqs12GsrASn5ZjPsJIBiYsLENcYkq6WwdHQIhRr_MDfTagWFcSHVwJZFbO6CTpI11HiW-bR3-FBMtFzCKhDq4a5b6FZGnqru5ZgEwi6qyKK_Do9ITbnrQX7Cbxz7eYlbg9N-e1UzGvNGNPrXR1zFJMGu86-vNZ8QUcC83F-bpxNdf9XYgD6w3xHiNSKrGP5jPaplFGTvQ4vw-yCzqf5IKGHpO1QfYbRFWWGxD_mDOukO3Un0vvoMvEeaW4Zqp8135yPp5UHmT_4vNEnvfZtCRhsDSBPTUFarj4e0axtfJ5WmrHRDyhSYN4dA36fTPRjFzcF4OhJJJdDx5s1PEiPwyOk=w934-h591-no)
Really? Do I have to?Based on the disasters America has faced by getting involved in these countries because of oil, it's a great argument for no government involvement in renewables. Exactly my point as well as yours.
I refer to the support of (various) western governments on such subtleties as "regime change" or all-out war in places like, oh, I dunno, Iran? Saudi Arabia? Venezuela? Iraq?
Please identify these free markets."The free market is an economic system based on supply and demand with little or no government control. It is a summary description of all voluntary exchanges that take place in a given economic environment. Free markets are characterized by a spontaneous and decentralized order of arrangements through which individuals make economic decisions. Based on its political and legal rules, a country’s free market economy may range between very large or entirely black market."
You have described what constitutes a free market, but haven't identified any that are actually free.
Feel free to do so.
Just as an aside, all environmentalist agree that wind and solar farms need to be clear cut and will destroy the environment, regardless of where they are built. This includes desserts. Anyway, ....
America. The EU.
You must be kidding. Do you really think America is a free market?Yes.
Yes.
Wow. You really have been drinking the Kool Aid.Another personal attack? You could do better than that, I'm sure.
"All environmentalists agree". Preposterous. How do you clear cut a "dessert"?
The wind farms in Oregon that I have seen have small roads that access the base of the wind towers, but there's no clear cutting. There's nothing to cut. They're in grasslands.
Another personal attack? You could do better than that, I'm sure.
Another personal attack? You could do better than that, I'm sure.
Not a personal attack at all. Sorry if you deemed it so. Merely a pragmatic observation.Pete, Free markets have varying degrees of government involvement. But for the most part, individuals and business make decisions as to what they're going to buy and companies what they're going to produce. Of course, whenever government gets involved, it distorts natural economic forces. For example, solar is being sold more and more people decide to buy them because of government rebates and tax deductions. This picking of favorites distort free natural market forces. Forcing gasoline to have 10% ethanol, pushes farmers to plant more corn rather than other products that people eat. This raises the prices of other food and hurts the poor especially. The president bailing out farmers due to China tariffs is another major effect on the free market. BY bailing out soy producers, maybe they would grow other food stuffs that would lower prices for American buyers. HAving said that, for the main part, market forces generally are not interfered with by government. Kodak's demise is a perfect example as is Amazon's success.
ie, if you think markets are "free", then you aren't paying enough attention.
Wind Farms Cause More Environmental Impact Than Previously Thought (https://scitechdaily.com/wind-farms-cause-more-environmental-impact-than-previously-thought/)
It seems with everything I read wind and solar look more and more like fairy tales, and nuclear looks to be the only real option.
Going from fossil fuels to wind/solar to save the environment is like quitting crack by smoking cigarettes. A little better, sure, but it will still kill you in the long run.
That's a wholly unsupportable statement. An opinion? Fine. But truth? Nope. More like a fairy tale of its own.
Besides, I think you should either broaden your research or vet your references more carefully. I read the second link, and every single one of the comments debunked it.
To say that nuclear is the ONLY solution is to demonstrate extreme closed-mindedness. Your crack/cigarettes argument is also unsupportable. Excellent trolling, though.
And, yes, I know what a LFTR is, and I support research and development on this technology.
Nuclear can be AN option, just not the ONLY option.
Thank you so much for providing your sources here. Oh wait ....Sometimes I wonder about the value of dueling sources. I'm pretty sure you can find source for the proposition that alien abductions are real, complete with live witness testimonials. Google is your friend.
Sometimes I wonder about the value of dueling sources. I'm pretty sure you can find a source for the proposition that alien abductions are real.
Sometimes I wonder about the value of dueling sources. I'm pretty sure you can find source for the proposition that alien abductions are real, complete with live witness testimonials. Google is your friend.
It's called liars figuring.I don't think it is all liars. Sometimes it is just reasonable people looking at the same data and coming to different conclusions. Black and white thinking is a fallacy in formal logic.
The least dependable finding is called a "scientific consensus."There are plenty of things less dependable than a scientific consensus.
I don't think it is all liars. Sometimes it is just reasonable people looking at the same data and coming to different conclusions. Black and white thinking is a fallacy in formal logic.
This is such a cop out and BS. Maybe the reason you say this because you don’t want to admit to yourself large scale solar/wind is a bad idea.You really should be yelling at someone else. I haven't made an argument for or against. I really don't have a dog in the hunt. I have only called into question some of the "facts" being tossed about.
A new model for solar farms that 'co-locates' crops and solar panels could result in a harvest of valuable biofuel plants along with solar energy. This co-location approach could prove especially useful in sunny, arid regions such as the southwestern United States
There are plenty of things less dependable than a scientific consensus.
Name one.How about an unsupported opinion of a layman? I'd take a scientific consensus over an unsupported opinion of a layman any day. Even the supported opinion of a layman. With all the cherry picking of sources, I'm dubious. As if Google is some arbiter of truth. But then I am pretty skeptical of certainty anyway. Even a cursory study of epistemology should do that for anyone.
Pete, Free markets have varying degrees of government involvement. But for the most part, individuals and business make decisions as to what they're going to buy and companies what they're going to produce. Of course, whenever government gets involved, it distorts natural economic forces. For example, solar is being sold more and more people decide to buy them because of government rebates and tax deductions. This picking of favorites distort free natural market forces. Forcing gasoline to have 10% ethanol, pushes farmers to plant more corn rather than other products that people eat. This raises the prices of other food and hurts the poor especially. The president bailing out farmers due to China tariffs is another major effect on the free market. BY bailing out soy producers, maybe they would grow other food stuffs that would lower prices for American buyers. HAving said that, for the main part, market forces generally are not interfered with by government. Kodak's demise is a perfect example as is Amazon's success.
There are no "natural economic forces". Economics is an invention of human beings. Nature has its own rules.But government had basically nothing to do with their failure or success. It was consumers buying and selling that affected the results. Kodak who had a head start with digital failed to follow through. They wanted to protect their lucrative film market. Well, the consumers decided they wanted digital anyway and Kodak failed. Consumers in the Amazon case felt that sitting at home at a computer was a great way to shop so now Bezos and his ex are very rich people. The government had nothing to do with that either. Billions of purchase decisions were made that caused both scenarios. That is how free markets work. Cartels and trade associations had nothing to do with it either although they can have an affect. They, however, are part of the mix as they are freely associated by without government causation. Those people are "free" too to do what they want. Frankly, I don't know what point you're trying to make. That government is in charge of markets? Not here in the US and most countries. Where they are (Cuba, North Korea, ) or were (Soviet Union), those economies become basket cases eventually.
All economic markets are controlled to some extent, whether by government regulations (frequently necessary) or by cartels and trade associations (created solely by those with vested interests). To say that markets are free is to ignore all evidence to the contrary. Hence, my Kool Aid taunt. (grape was my favourite flavour, back in the day)
Kodak failed due to ignorance and greed, IMO. Amazon succeeded due to smarts and greed. Whether either or both are a good thing is open to debate.
Gosh, I wish things were that simple.Yup. That simple. Don't complicate it.
Yup. That simple. Don't complicate it.So just ignore the complicated stuff?
So just ignore the complicated stuff?Stop griping and make a point.
But then I am pretty skeptical of certainty anyway. Even a cursory study of epistemology should do that for anyone.
You really should be yelling at someone else. I haven't made an argument for or against. I really don't have a dog in the hunt. I have only called into question some of the "facts" being tossed about.
30 seconds on google demonstrates that Michael Shellenberger is known shill for the nuclear power industry, and is prone to, well, to lying a lot.
30 seconds on google demonstrates that Michael Shellenberger is known shill for the nuclear power industry, and is prone to, well, to lying a lot.
why does the left like to demonize nuclear so much and make it sound a lot worse then it actually is?
the left is spreading mis-information for both wind/solar, making it look considerably better then it is, and nuclear, making it look considerably worse then it is.
World nuclear - new plants, most in CHina, Russia, India and elsewhere.
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx
America has been lagging in new construction of nuclear plants. With low cost natural gas fueled, it's hard to compete today. Wind gets subsidies.
US nuclear article:
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/usa-nuclear-power.aspx
World nuclear - new plants, most in CHina, Russia, India and elsewhere.
https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx
What does this have to do with "the left" ?
Many environmentalists have a knee-jerk reaction to nuclear power and have been fighting it for years.
Doug Casey on Why the Left Hates Nuclear Power (https://www.caseyresearch.com/articles/doug-casey-on-why-the-left-hates-nuclear-power/)
From a website pushing green tech. I should mention everything on the list has been debunked.
10 Reasons to Oppose Nuclear Energy (https://www.greenamerica.org/fight-dirty-energy/amazon-build-cleaner-cloud/10-reasons-oppose-nuclear-energy)
How does that answer my question? How does a wish to avoid making the planet a very unpleasant place to live relate to "left" and "right" ?
That, specifically, does not. I think both sides would like to see the planet better, although much to my chagrin of fellow right of center comrades, I'll admit it is more so on the left then the right.
What I have an issue with is all of the mis-information the left constantly puts out there about nuclear. Even the latest HBO "documentary" on Chernobyl has been debunked by nearly all of the experts who were on ground, many of who were not Russian and have no reason to try and make the situation look better then it was. They purposely dramatized the event by implying the deaths on nuclear exposure when most were caused by the fire and explosions. They also made up characters that never existed and events that never took place.
HBO="the left" ?
That, specifically, does not. I think both sides would like to see the planet better, although much to my chagrin of fellow right of center comrades, I'll admit it is more so on the left then the right.Apparently it has not scared other countries from installing nuclear plants. OK, China is dictatorial, but India, France and others aren't. They have to deal more with the public as we do. While I agree that many Americans are afraid of nuclear because of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, the costs for nuclear have prohibited their further installation here in the US. Alternative energies like natural gas and coal are cheaper to build. Government subsidies of wind and solar don't help either. I think if the cost became really competitive, we'd get over the "fear" and start developing nuclear again.
What I have an issue with is all of the mis-information the left constantly puts out there about nuclear. Even the latest HBO "documentary" on Chernobyl has been debunked by nearly all of the experts who were on ground, many of who were not Russian and have no reason to try and make the situation look better then it was. The "documentary" purposely dramatized the events by implying the deaths were from nuclear exposure when most were caused by the fire and explosions. They also made up characters that never existed and events that never took place, and contradicted the World Health Organization stats on the event.
But most who watch this will just assume it was only dramatized a bit with most of it being true, and not doing any follow up research to see if that is the case. It will become another China Syndrome in the minds of the public as yet another false reason to not have nuclear.
HBO, Your Liberal Id Is Showing (https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/06/hbo-your-liberal-id-showing/326810/)
HBO, Showtime Are Most Polarizing Entertainment Brands Among Democrats, Republicans (https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/democrats-republicans-hbo-showtime-animal-planet-336475)
I mean seriously, one of the networks biggest prime time stars is Bill Maher.
I actually LOL'ed reading those links. Too funny.
To get back on topic:
Due to last month's heatwave, some 400 people are counted in my small country as excessive mortality (above the weekly summer average). There was also a clear pattern across the country, with increasingly more of that mortality in the provinces that were hotter than the others.
The number was higher than during last year's heatwave where mortality was 'only' increased by 100 per week.
Heatwaves like this one are happening 3x more frequently than in the last century, and going forward they are expected to occur every other year on average. According to meteorologists, the frequency of heatwaves would be about 100x less frequent without global warming.
Cheers,
Bart
Sad news indeed.
This is something I thought of the other day while driving. Since climate science is not an easy to follow field and one that relies on a lot of different measurements, getting the climate deniers to actually believe this heat wave was due to man made climate change I think is fruitless.
I think a much better approach to try and convince many on the right to abandon fossil fuels would be to focus on the deaths caused by air pollution. This is much more cut and dry and can't be denied (as easily). Cutting fossil fuels to save people from deaths caused by their pollution should be reason enough to start decreasing our fossil fuel use.
Okay, maybe those articles are a little more opinionated, but then again, which side of the isle you are on is a rather opinionated subject.I think the issue is that every nature program has to have a statement of how man is destroying the environment and killing species. It's like mandatory. So regardless of where you watch it, HBO, PBS,CBS, etc. we get this constant drumbeat that "we're bad", we're screwing up the environment etc. There's no balance. It's all one-sided and very distorted.
To get back on topic:Sorry about the deaths. But how many people will not die do to warmer winters?
Due to last month's heatwave, some 400 people are counted in my small country as excessive mortality (above the weekly summer average). There was also a clear pattern across the country, with increasingly more of that mortality in the provinces that were hotter than the others.
The number was higher than during last year's heatwave where mortality was 'only' increased by 100 per week.
Heatwaves like this one are happening 3x more frequently than in the last century, and going forward they are expected to occur every other year on average. According to meteorologists, the frequency of heatwaves would be about 100x less frequent without global warming.
Cheers,
Bart
I think the issue is that every nature program has to have a statement of how man is destroying the environment and killing species. It's like mandatory. So regardless of where you watch it, HBO, PBS,CBS, etc. we get this constant drumbeat that "we're bad", we're screwing up the environment etc. There's no balance. It's all one-sided and very distorted.
July 2019 now stands as Alaska’s hottest month on record, the latest benchmark in a long-term warming trend with ominous repercussions ranging from rapidly vanishing summer sea ice and melting glaciers to raging wildfires and deadly chaos for marine life.
July’s statewide average temperature rose to 58.1 degrees Fahrenheit (14.5 degrees Celsius), a level that for denizens of the Lower 48 states might seem cool enough but is actually 5.4 degrees above normal and nearly a full degree higher than Alaska’s previous record-hot month. More significantly, July was the 12th consecutive month in which average temperatures were above normal nearly every day, said Brian Brettschneider, a scientist with the Alaska Center for Climate Assessment and Policy (ACCAP) at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Of Alaska’s 10 warmest months on record, seven have now occurred since 2004.
“You can always have a random kind of warm month, season or even year,” Brettschneider said. “But when it happens year after year after year after year after year, then statistically it fails the test of randomness and it then becomes a trend.”
Yes, but they will deny it regardless (e.g. by only cherry-picking some more plant biomass caused by elevated CO2 levels), because it's inconvenient. The number 3 cause (after #1 cancer and #2 cardiovascular causes) of premature death in my country is air-polution (mostly Particulate Matter (PM) smaller than 2.5 micron, and UFP (ultra-fine particles and black carbon smaller than 0.1 microns).People don't die from air pollution. It's not a disease. Can you elaborate? What makes it number 3?
I've taken my measures to at least keep the PM levels low inside the house, and in particular in the bedroom (where almost of 1/3rd of the time is spent).
Cheers,
Bart
Yeah - let's hear it for all the positives of killing coral, starving polar bears etc etc etcI didn't say there weren't negatives. It's just that they only present negatives.
I’ll admit it gets more complicated to corrolate lower then expected drops in CO2 to wind/solar, but the ecological effects of killing birds and other animals are pretty easy to measure. You just count the corpses.
Seabird carcasses are littering beaches in what has shaped up as the fifth consecutive year of large bird die-offs in Alaska.
High numbers of salmon, apparently overcome by the heat before getting the chance to spawn, have been found floating dead in rivers and streams around western Alaska.
Most likely, more birds get killed by pollution and changes in weather patterns than by the wind turbines.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alaksa-warming/alaskas-hottest-month-portends-transformation-into-unfrozen-state-idUSKCN1UZ110
I didn't say there weren't negatives. It's just that they only present negatives.
Why can't we hear that since warming, there is now an additional area of land that grows grass and trees equal to twice the size of the US? What about all the expansion of species and populations into that new area including farming? Regarding killing of corals, why don't we read about the truth that coral is just moving into other areas which were colder before but now can support coral because the seas there are getting warmer? Why don;t we hear that since CO2 levels are higher, more food is being grown in the same land area to feed poor and starving people throughout the world. That would show an honest representation of what's happening. Tell the full, truth not just part of it. Of course, that would go against the party line that we're killing everything and destroying the earth. I want to know all the facts. Not just the facts that are convenient to the film producer's preconceived beliefs.
Sorry about the deaths. But how many people will not die do to warmer winters?
Most likely, more birds get killed by pollution and changes in weather patterns than by the wind turbines.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alaksa-warming/alaskas-hottest-month-portends-transformation-into-unfrozen-state-idUSKCN1UZ110 (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alaksa-warming/alaskas-hottest-month-portends-transformation-into-unfrozen-state-idUSKCN1UZ110)
You're going to have to provide some support for all those claims if you want to be taken seriously - they look like you just invented a bunch of "facts" to support your ideological position.
Yes, but they will deny it regardless (e.g. by only cherry-picking some more plant biomass caused by elevated CO2 levels), because it's inconvenient. The number 3 cause (after #1 cancer and #2 cardiovascular causes) of premature death in my country is air-polution (mostly Particulate Matter (PM) smaller than 2.5 micron, and UFP (ultra-fine particles and black carbon smaller than 0.1 microns).
I've taken my measures to at least keep the PM levels low inside the house, and in particular in the bedroom (where almost of 1/3rd of the time is spent).
Cheers,
Bart
People don't die from air pollution. It's not a disease. Can you elaborate? What makes it number 3?
Hard to say, the numbers are far too low for reliable statistics to begin with.Thanks for presenting that statistic. Why don't I ever hear from politicians and popular media how warmer winters are saving people from dying. They only seem to die when it's warmer. :)
Most excess mortality in the winter periods, like in 2017/2018, is caused by influenza.
In 2017/2018 some 9444 more people died than expected in the 18 weeks during the epidemic of that winter.
(https://www.rivm.nl/sites/default/files/2019-08/sterfte_lag1_2pis_tm_20190731.jpeg)
Cheers,
Bart
Changes in population shifts with climate change as they have since time immemorial. While some species might be affected negatively, others are positively affected.
Also, warmer weather has increased species diversity and population.
It's not a decease, but a direct cause of a slew of (additional pulmonary, additional cardiovascular) deceases, and is seen as one of the causes (besides food patterns and old age) of diabetes type II. This is based on solid epidemiologic studies, in which variables like food patterns, healthy lifestyle, genetic disposition, etc., etc., are all accounted for. People on one side of my town, have an average life expectancy that's 3-5 months lower than on the other side (guess on which side a highway is situated). On the national level, average life expectancy in my country is reduced by some 8 months due to Particulate Matter, and another 3 months by NOx (Nitric oxides).Very confusing. You stated originally that cardiovascular and cancer are 1 and 2. So now air pollution also causes people to die from those same diseases making it #3. How can you differentiate that a person died from heart disease due to pollution or from heart disease from natural causes? Also, a 4 months difference in longevity is a perturbation. SO your side of the street they live to 80 years 4 months and the other side they live to only 80 years, 4 months less? To assign it to pollution caused by the highway traffic between the two sides is a political guess. I'm not saying pollution is good for you. But the deaths you assign have no basis in fact or research. It's just a guess.
One of the mechanisms behind it, besides direct irritation of the pulmonary tract, has to do with with the constant elevation of Cortisol levels which constantly increases the level of blood-sugar above required levels. Other organ failures are caused by Particulate Matter small enough to enter our bloodstream directly through our lungs. Elevated levels of soot can be found in the kidneys of children who go to school nearby busy streets. There are American studies that directly link certain kidney failures to elevated levels of particulate matter.
There is too much evidence to ignore, that's why we can reliably rank it as the 3rd cause of premature death in my country.
Cheers,
Bart
Humans are negatively affected, cockroaches less so.
Biodiversity has decreased significantly (not only due to Global temperature), almost worldwide. If you have reliable sources (pulling it out of thin air doesn't count) stating otherwise, I'm interested ...
Cheers,
Bart
Why are humans effected less so by climate change? Man has always done better as it warmed up. Just look at where we are now compared to 12000 years ago during the last Ice Age. Our population is higher than ever and we are living in more parts of the earth. Both measurements are standard ones used for success of a species. So we're doing great. As more CO2 causes more food to be produced, people will do even better as we can feed more of us.Why don't you turn off your air conditioning for a week and report back.
Very confusing. You stated originally that cardiovascular and cancer are 1 and 2.
So now air pollution also causes people to die from those same diseases making it #3. How can you differentiate that a person died from heart disease due to pollution or from heart disease from natural causes? Also, a 4 months difference in longevity is a perturbation. SO your side of the street they live to 80 years 4 months and the other side they live to only 80 years, 4 months less? To assign it to pollution caused by the highway traffic between the two sides is a political guess. I'm not saying pollution is good for you. But the deaths you assign have no basis in fact or research. It's just a guess.
Why don't you turn off your air conditioning for a week and report back.I live in America where we can afford electricity. Not like in "let's go renewable" Germany where no one can afford air conditioning they're 2 1/2 times more expensive to run.
It may come as a shock to you, but most people do die from Cancer, and cardiovascular decease, that is not related to Particulate matter or NOx. The causes may be genetic or caused by foodrelated issues, to name just two.
IN ADDITION there are those where the cause is primarily particulate matter and NOx.
HOLD ON. I'm trying to dislodge the needle from my Troll-o-meter.
Ah, now you're running the I don't believe Scientists spiel again.
Friendly advice, try educating yourself first, then attempt to engage in a meaningful discussion.
Flatout denying without disproving is plain silly.
Cheers,
Bart
You made the claim. You prove it.
I live in America where we can afford electricity. Not like in "let's go renewable" Germany where no one can afford air conditioning they're 2 1/2 times more expensive to run.
So you are admitting that your denial is baseless?No I can't prove a negative. If you have statistics showing air pollution in your country is 3rd for deaths, OK, I believe you. You ought to clean up your atmosphere. In the USA, our deaths from pollution don't even show up on the charts.
Cheers,
Bart
Changes in population shifts with climate change as they have since time immemorial. While some species might be affected negatively, others are positively affected.
Also, warmer weather has increased species diversity and population. Just compare the warmer Amazon region and to colder Alaska. Even Canadians do better when it's warmer. :)
Positively affected were mainly the pests - mosquitoes, ticks, japanese beetles, locusts, vegetable-eating moths/caterpillars. And Florida pythons.No. Florida pet Pythons were released in the Everglades by Canadians when they returned home after their winter vacationing season. If it was warmer still, you could have taken them home to release up there. :)
No. Florida pet Pythons were released in the Everglades by Canadians when they returned home after their winter vacationing season. If it was warmer still, you could have taken them home to release up there. :)
This is what is the world coming to. At one time the Canadians were bring to Florida their pet polar bear cubs and moose calves, but these days it's primarily the Canada geese.We've got enough geese already. I'm always stepping in their poop. Do they add to global warming too like cows?
Positively affected were mainly the pests - mosquitoes, ticks, japanese beetles, locusts, vegetable-eating moths/caterpillars. And Florida pythons.
Large, blood-sucking mosquitoes already are the bane of people, caribou, reindeer, and other mammals eking out a living in the frozen north. But as temperatures warm, mosquitoes above the Arctic Circle emerge earlier, grow faster, and survive as winged pests even longer, according to Culler’s new research, which was published Tuesday in Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
There aren’t a lot of animals for them (mosquitoes) to eat in the Arctic, so when they finally find one, they are ferocious. They are relentless. They do not stop.
Mosquitoes don't seem as bad as they use to be when I was a kid. At least in NY and NJ. I was always getting bitten and had loads of itchy bites all season. Maybe my chemistry has changed and they just don't like me anymore.
This is an interesting infographic.How many people die with malaria every year because we stopped using DDT?
How many people die with malaria every year because we stopped using DDT?
Not sure, but banning it did save the Bald Eagle from extinction.But malaria is not in the US. They could have continued using it in Africa and elsewhere. No?
It's always nice to be able to say that the national bird is still alive and well.
But malaria is not in the US. They could have continued using it in Africa and elsewhere. No?
It's not like DDT was only bad for one bird, the Bald Eagle. It thinned the egg walls of several different bird species. It would have done just as much damage to different predator birds in Africa too.Weeds don't kill people, malaria does, about 400,000 people per year and many more sick from the disease. In 2015 alone, there were an estimated 214 million new cases of malaria. It sounds like DDT was good and bad. It eliminated malaria from many countries and regions including North America, Europe and the Soviet Union. India still uses it but for spraying on walls of homes. The article points out a lot of negatives too. But it did save a lot of people. Of course since it wiped out malaria where we lived, who cares about what it's still doing in other parts of the world. As long as we save a few birds, that's what's important.
On top of that, DDT was never intended for human use either. It was dangerous for us too.
Should we bring back Agent Orange as a weed killer too?
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/ (https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/)
Changes in population shifts with climate change as they have since time immemorial. While some species might be affected negatively, others are positively affected.
Also, warmer weather has increased species diversity and population. Just compare the warmer Amazon region and to colder Alaska. Even Canadians do better when it's warmer. :)
That paper doesn't say what you try to make it say.That's a fair comment. I"m glad you brought it up. However, that's one "may happen" from an article that concluded from actual NASA satellite data the additional greening has occurred over the last 35 years. This one guy said that maybe it will be reversed if plants adapt. But there is NO data in their report and study that it has adapted. There's still more green as of the 2016 date of the report.
The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”
That's a fair comment. I"m glad you brought it up. However, that's one "may happen" from an article that concluded from actual NASA satellite data the additional greening has occurred over the last 35 years. This one guy said that maybe it will be reversed if plants adapt. But there is NO data in their report and study that it has adapted. There's still more green as of the 2016 date of the report.
What's also interesting in the article is the following :"“While the detection of greening is based on data, the attribution to various drivers is based on models,” ". So, while the extra greening is factual based on satellite data, the driver, CO2, is an assumption based on models. In effect the extra greeing may be caused by something else. Interesting that we don't similarly hear that CO2 is a driver of warming based on models. In warming case, it's assumed as fact. The scientists in the greening case are being more honest. It would be nice if we got that same honesty about warming and climate change. That'[size=78%]s all I've been asking for. [/size]
Unfortunately, the warm weather and air pollution has caused an explosion of bark beetles, among other pests.That's a terrible situation. But like weather, it's a local situation in the Harz Mountains of Germany. What's happening across the world with the amount of trees and other greenery? From the studies above, the world is overall a lot more greener due to warming and CO2.
In Germany, in the Harz Mountains 100 Million of pine trees have been killed by the bark beetles.
(http://live.stormypictures.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/IMG_1065-1.jpg)
Interesting that we don't similarly hear that CO2 is a driver of warming based on models.
That's a terrible situation. But like weather, it's a local situation in the Harz Mountains of Germany. What's happening across the world with the amount of trees and other greenery? From the studies above, the world is overall a lot more greener due to warming and CO2.
the beetle has migrated well beyond its historic range into northern British Columbia and eastward into the boreal forest of north-central Alberta.
Beetle populations grow when summers are warm/dry and winters are mild.
That's a terrible situation. But like weather, it's a local situation in the Harz Mountains of Germany. What's happening across the world with the amount of trees and other greenery? From the studies above, the world is overall a lot more greener due to warming and CO2.
Earth's greening — meaning the increase in areas covered by green leaves — has made the greatest gains in China and India since the mid-1990s. "The effect comes mostly from ambitious tree-planting programs in China and intensive agriculture in both countries," NASA wrote on Tuesday as it released maps of the planet-wide changes.
[...]
Previous NASA research found that Earth's increased greenery is largely due to skyrocketing levels of carbon-dioxide saturating the air — which plants use to grow. But this new research argues that tree and crop planting plays a bigger, outsized role.
BArt, we've seen that same chart about 6 times already. What's new about it? It doesn't provide proof. The increase in CO2 could be coincidental with warming and not causal.
Not only in Germany. Also in Canada.But isn't Canada greener overall? As it warms up, former regions up north that couldn't support trees, shrubs, and grass, are now doing so and more than making up for losses due to a beetle. Nature isn't static. Unfortunately, we all tend to cherry pick certain data to prove our point. We have to look at the full picture. For example, leaving aside the extra mosquitos when you go on your canoe trip up north, has the warmer weather given you more time to going canoeing? Earlier thaws, and more heat is conducive to that. BRinging it back to photography, you have more opportunity to capture that once-in-a-lifetime shot. :)
https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-resources/forests-forestry/wildland-fires-insects-disturban/top-forest-insects-diseases-cana/mountain-pine-beetle/13381 (https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-resources/forests-forestry/wildland-fires-insects-disturban/top-forest-insects-diseases-cana/mountain-pine-beetle/13381)
Your own linked article says something else:Planting plays a bigger role in China and India, not the rest of the world where extra greening is occurring naturally.
Cheers,
Bart
But isn't Canada greener overall? As it warms up, former regions up north that couldn't support trees, shrubs, and grass, are now doing so and more than making up for losses due to a beetle. Nature isn't static. Unfortunately, we all tend to cherry pick certain data to prove our point. We have to look at the full picture. For example, leaving aside the extra mosquitos when you go on your canoe trip up north, has the warmer weather given you more time to going canoeing? Earlier thaws, and more heat is conducive to that. BRinging it back to photography, you have more opportunity to capture that once-in-a-lifetime shot. :)
Besides that it's updated, apparently you have not seen it often enough for it to register, including this:The IPCC is biased. By now that's obvious. They're trying to justify their continued existence. A lot of people are making a lot of money from "climate change". The fact is, food production increases with more CO2. It's the same reason more natural greening is taking place in the world. God and nature doesn't distinguish between food plants and naturally growing other plants like green trees. If CO2 causes more growth of the latter, it causes more growth of the former.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PrrTk6DqzE&t=13s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PrrTk6DqzE&t=13s)
The origin of the CO2 can be pretty well pinpointed on Human activity (even the US government agrees on that), i.e. burning of fossil fuel. The Carbon emissions bookkeeping and the atmospherical composition of Carbon isotopes and the inverse fluctuation of Oxygen are all consistent with, and cannot be explained by other actors, "It's US".
Nature reacts in several ways, acidification of water, increasing temperatures, expanding water volumes, global changes in temperature distribution, local droughts and downpours, more Extreme Weather.
And it threatens food-production if we do not mend our ways of landuse:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/srccl/ (https://www.ipcc.ch/report/srccl/)
Cheers,
Bart
The IPCC is biased. By now that's obvious.
Nice and tranquil pictures, Alan
Actually, I haven't had too many chances to go canoeing in recent years. We've been having heat waves and also many windy days. Not much fun paddling under such conditions.
And when the mosquitoes start buzzing, photography is the last thing on my mind. I leave the camera in the bag, and run for the car or jump into the lake.
How? Any proof for that fake 'news'?They have an agenda. That's obvious to any discerning person.
Cheers,
Bart
They have an agenda. That's obvious to any discerning person.You have an agenda. That's obvious to any discerning person.
You have an agenda. That's obvious to any discerning person.Everyone here has an agenda. :)
You have an agenda. That's obvious to any discerning person.
I'm not much of a canoe person. But my wife and I rented that house that had both a canoe and a kayak as well as paddle boats. I also canoed when it was very windy. And that heavy aluminum canoe pictured above was almost impossible to handle. I kept getting blown off course. I couldn't change its direction easily. It really need another person beside myself to handle it. The one-man kayak was easier. But it's lightness tends to cause the boat to go left than right too much with each oar stroke. A lot of wasted energy. The canoe, in no wind, tends to keep going straight with less effort which is more relaxing. They're entirely different experiences. Do you have any shots while canoeing we can see?
The IPCC is biased. By now that's obvious.
They're trying to justify their continued existence. A lot of people are making a lot of money from "climate change". The fact is, food production increases with more CO2. It's the same reason more natural greening is taking place in the world. God and nature doesn't distinguish between food plants and naturally growing other plants like green trees. If CO2 causes more growth of the latter, it causes more growth of the former.
To support that claim you'd have to identify mistakes in the scientific evidence they publish. No need to type rhetoric on the internet - just get your slide rule out and prove them wrong in a scientific paper. Thus does knowledge advance....Sorry but I've lived too long to believe everything every so- called expert claims who think they have a handle on the "truth"..
Sorry but I've lived too long to believe everything every so- called expert claims who think they have a handle on the "truth"..
"So-called"? Have you checked their credentials, and the process to produce such a report ???They're all in the same choir.
About the IPCC special report, that I linked to:
"107 experts from 52 countries were selected as Coordinating Lead Authors and Lead Authors – who are working on each individual chapter – and Review Editors, who ensured that comments by experts and governments were given appropriate consideration as the report developed."
and
"A call for nomination of authors was sent to governments, observer organizations and IPCC Bureau Members on 5 April 2017. Graphics that provide background information about the nominees are available here"
Cheers,
Bart
Thank you Alan.Les, if you look at the canoe picture at the dock that I posted, the seat for it is way in the back where I sat. Without another canoeist up front, the whole canoe tilts up making it that more difficult to control. A little wind and the canoe starts to spin. I can see why yours controls better.
Most canoes have symmetric hull, the only diference is the position of the seats (bow seat has more room between the seat and the end of the canoe).
In practical terms, depending on the load in the canoe, a solo paddler could sit on either seat and the boat would behave in a similar manner.
Swift Winisk has a sleeker bow than stern and because of that for the optimal performance it has to be loaded evenly in order to have a straight waterline.
In the picture below, the bow is on the right side, and the painted waterline assists the paddlers to keep the boat absolutely level.
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/f1b4eb_3b8f2567051d403bb2567804362b9755.jpg/v1/fill/w_699,h_216,al_c,q_80,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/f1b4eb_3b8f2567051d403bb2567804362b9755.webp)
https://www.swiftcanoe.com/winisk
Les, if you look at the canoe picture at the dock that I posted, the seat for it is way in the back where I sat. Without another canoeist up front, the whole canoe tilts up making it that more difficult to control. A little wind and the canoe starts to spin. I can see why yours controls better.Paddling a canoe around a lake is not rocket science.
They're all in the same choir.
Les, if you look at the canoe picture at the dock that I posted, the seat for it is way in the back where I sat. Without another canoeist up front, the whole canoe tilts up making it that more difficult to control. A little wind and the canoe starts to spin. I can see why yours controls better.
Paddling a canoe around a lake is not rocket science.
That's what one would think.I recognize that there is a bell curve in intelligence.
But I've seen quite a few furiously paddling canoeists on a zig zag course and some not so funny upsets in even relatively small waves or when pinned in wind against a rock.
Once at Algonquin Park canoe rental dock, I saw a pair who boarded the canoe in the opposite direction, and the man sitting in the stern seat facing his end of the canoe couldn't figure out where to put his feet. Fortunately, the were straightened out before paddling out into the lake.
Right! That's why if you paddle solo a tandem canoe, it's better to switch the seats, and sit in the bow seat facing the middle of the canoe. Even so, the now new bow would ride higher, but not quite as high as if you were sitting on the stern seat. Even better is to kneel in the middle, or slightly behind the middle. That's in no wind or with just a slight wind.Next time i'l make my wife join me and have her row. 😀
To paddle solo in windy conditions, it's best to put your weight slightly forward, so that the bow rides lower than the stern. This way the wind hits the back half of the canoe which makes it easier to keep the boat on its course.
Same choir that faked the Moon landings, I suppose. Really - if you imagine that 97% of the world's climate scientists are all in on a conspiracy, you need to check your meds.When the environment becomes religious, it's amazing how many zealots you could find.
Same choir that faked the Moon landings, I suppose. Really - if you imagine that 97% of the world's climate scientists are all in on a conspiracy, you need to check your meds.
Good point! ;)Even though I'm not in a flood zone, I just bought flood insurance for $500 a year. The morons who run the HOA (Homeowner's Association) in my 55+ community sold the rights to the builder next door to allow them dump their storm water runoffs for a new building site into our system's storm drain system. The topography shows their area on the other side of the hill. So the water there naturally runs off on the other side from us. So now we're going to get more water that is not part of the government documents that show the new situation. However, they had to get building;s department approval for the new design by PE's. But what concerns me is that the odds of the 50 or 100 or 500 year "flood" has just gone down so it could create a problem for us in the future. Already, two weeks ago, the drain outside the back of my house overfilled - it couldn't handle the heavy rains. Fortunately, our house is on a slight decline so, any extra water should flow into the street bypassing us. But who knows what will happen if it really gets bad.
I suspect that less than 50% of them are engaged in a conspiracy with the media and politics. Most climate scientists probably understand that climate changes are too complex to attribute a single cause to such changes, such as an increase in CO2 levels, although they will tend to remain silent on such points in order to avoid emotional confrontation with the 'conspiracists' who believe that the truth should be sacrificed in order to promote political action.
The 97% consensus refers only to that (less than 50%) proportion of climate scientists who are prepared to categorically state that CO2 rises are the main driver of the current warming, and that such warming will be generally bad for the environment and humanity. The other 3% (of the 50% or less) are prepared to categorically state that current CO2 levels have a negligible effect on climate change.
Professor Stephen Schneider explained the process very well, as I mentioned in reply # 222 of this thread.
The great tragedy of this 'misrepresentation' of the evidence in the media is that many people will be duped into thinking that the severity of the latest flood, drought or hurricane which destroyed their homes and possibly caused some loss of life, is mainly the result of human emissions of CO2.
Instead of demanding that the government build more dams to reduce the effects of flooding and droughts, and introduce stricter building codes for homes subject to periodic cyclones or hurricanes, they jump on the bandwagon of renewable energy and kid themselves that their government is tackling the problem by introducing more expensive, subsidized, renewable energy.
The more expensive the energy, the less less likely it will be that the real solution to property damage and loss of life will be addressed.
Even though I'm not in a flood zone, I just bought flood insurance for $500 a year. The morons who run the HOA (Homeowner's Association) in my 55+ community sold the rights to the builder next door to allow them dump their storm water runoffs for a new building site into our system's storm drain system. The topography shows their area on the other side of the hill. So the water there naturally runs off on the other side from us. So now we're going to get more water that is not part of the government documents that show the new situation. However, they had to get building;s department approval for the new design by PE's. But what concerns me is that the odds of the 50 or 100 or 500 year "flood" has just gone down so it could create a problem for us in the future. Already, two weeks ago, the drain outside the back of my house overfilled - it couldn't handle the heavy rains. Fortunately, our house is on a slight decline so, any extra water should flow into the street bypassing us. But who knows what will happen if it really gets bad.
A prudent choice on your part. It indeed looks like a strange decision, unless it's a purely financially motivated short term decision to sell those rights (which would explain it, but it remains dubiuous).Fortunately, I'm not in the dubious situation you all face in the Netherlands. I only have two thumbs and would never be able to survive there. :)
It's a pity that it cost you (and others) $500 a year while others benefit. I assume that the insurance also covers natural disasters.
In my country, we have had a collective system of water-management (organised in local Waterboards with a legal task, and elections for its boardmembers) for centuries already. The low lying parts of the country are surrounded by a network of levees/dikes. Windmill powered pump stations (nowadays with electric pumps and diesel backup) are used to keep the groundwater levels in check by pumping the excess water out into surrounding canals, which in their turn pump the water into rivers which carry the water off to sea.
When there is excess water it becomes harder to pump it into the rivers that have to fight higher seawater levels, and in periods of prolonged drought, due to a lack of counter-pressure, the seawater causes evermore salination of the agricultural lands further inland.
Cheers,
Bart
Even though I'm not in a flood zone, I just bought flood insurance for $500 a year. The morons who run the HOA (Homeowner's Association) in my 55+ community sold the rights to the builder next door to allow them dump their storm water runoffs for a new building site into our system's storm drain system. The topography shows their area on the other side of the hill. So the water there naturally runs off on the other side from us. So now we're going to get more water that is not part of the government documents that show the new situation. However, they had to get building;s department approval for the new design by PE's. But what concerns me is that the odds of the 50 or 100 or 500 year "flood" has just gone down so it could create a problem for us in the future. Already, two weeks ago, the drain outside the back of my house overfilled - it couldn't handle the heavy rains. Fortunately, our house is on a slight decline so, any extra water should flow into the street bypassing us. But who knows what will happen if it really gets bad.
In Australia the insurance companies make a distinction between 'riverine' flooding, and 'flash flooding' which results from the poor contouring or shaping of the urban landscape to deal with any unusually heavy downpour of rain.The US government through FEMA has flood charts for the entire country. When you buy a house, the mortgage company checks to see if you're in a flood zone. They require you buy flood insurance if you are.
Riverine flooding is never unprecedented, so the history of past flooding events in the specific region is taken into consideration when the insurance companies calculate the price of 'riverine' flood insurance, which is very high.
However, it seems in the past that many people who lived close to a river hadn't read the fine print of their insurance policy and had assumed that their flood insurance covered all types of floods. When their house was washed away by a flooding river, they were devastated to find that they were not insured.
Fortunately, the government does come to their aid, but they probably don't get recompensed for the full value of their property, and certainly not for any loss of life.
I'm rather troubled, even alarmed, that Australian governments are not sufficiently addressing the problems, within the historical context of regular floods, droughts and cyclones that can be expected to reoccur regardless of current CO2 levels.
That's a terrible situation. But like weather, it's a local situation in the Harz Mountains of Germany. What's happening across the world with the amount of trees and other greenery?
Also, this. Carbon dioxide-enhanced crops lose nutritional value
https://www.forbes.com/sites/fionamcmillan/2018/05/27/rising-co2-is-reducing-the-nutritional-value-of-our-food/#3dee05b75133
However, the nutritional content of any particular type of food crop can vary enormously depending on the location where it was grown, the farming practices used, the type of fertilizers used, the biodiversity and health of the soils, the mineral content of the soils, and so on.
...
Being concerned about a possible lack of Selenium in my diet a few years ago, I did some research into the Selenium content of Brazil nuts. I came across recommendations that as little as one Brazil nut per day could meet the recommended daily dosage of 55 mcg. Other sites recommended as many as 5 or 6 Brazil nuts per day, which seemed rather odd, so I did some more searching.
...
I came across some scientific research that rigorously examined the Selenium content of Brazil nuts grown in many different locations around the world. I was amazed that the Selenium content varied by a factor of 10. In other words, if just one Brazil nut grown in ideal conditions could meet my daily needs for Selenium, it could take as many as 10 Brazil nuts grown in less ideal conditions to meet the same daily requirements for Selenium.
A fungus that has wreaked havoc on banana plantations in the Eastern Hemisphere has, despite years of preventative efforts, arrived in the Americas. ICA, the Colombian agriculture and livestock authority, confirmed on Thursday that laboratory tests have positively identified the presence of so-called Panama disease Tropical Race 4 on banana farms in the Caribbean coastal region. The announcement was accompanied by a declaration of a national state of emergency.
The discovery of the fungus represents a potential impending disaster for bananas as both a food source and an export commodity. Panama disease Tropical Race 4—or TR4—is an infection of the banana plant by a fungus of the genus Fusarium. Although bananas produced in infected soil are not unsafe for humans, infected plants eventually stop bearing fruit.
Oh dear. We'll all have to switch to watermelon.
Careful, Les. If you say things like that the "me too"ers will be on your case.
Microplastics, those pervasive relics of modern times, have invaded seemingly every part of the planet today, including the most remote reaches of the Arctic. Scientists have been puzzling over how this flood of pollution makes its way to such distant locations far from the urban centers where it’s generated. A new study finds a surprising route for the tiny particles—they’re ferried aloft to fall in the Arctic as snow.
“Basically microplastic is everywhere,” says Bergmann. “Aerial transport is the pathway to transport microplastic to the remotest parts of our planet.” And this means the atmosphere may be a key source of exposure for humans and animals. “Microplastic is in the air, and it's not unlikely that we also inhale some of it,” says Bergmann.” And part of this may actually make it into our lungs."
Update, 19 August, 8:53am:
After the heavy storm over Hessen there are numerous injured. According to information from the Hessenschau at least 23 people were injured. Particularly affected was the district of Offenbach and above all Dietzenbach and Langen. According to the police, 17 people were slightly injured and four seriously injured in the Offenbach district, including one child. There was also an injured man in the Main-Kinzig district.
A new study finds that microplastics are being carried around the planet in atmospheric winds, and that we’re breathing them in.A new thing to worry about. Maybe we can start another thread. :) PS I don;t know why they don't know if we're breathing these things in for sure or not. All they would have to do is have some "breather" device sucking in the air against a filter. It would be nice to know what's up?
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/08/microplastics-found-in-arctic-snow/
... this is the first time that they experienced a tornado...
A new thing to worry about. Maybe we can start another thread. :) PS I don;t know why they don't know if we're breathing these things in for sure or not. All they would have to do is have some "breather" device sucking in the air against a filter. It would be nice to know what's up?You wouldn't believe the scientific research anyway, so what's the point?
What did they think all those wind turbines would do?
You wouldn't believe the scientific research anyway, so what's the point?Well, the first thing that would happen is that some zealot would have a bill before Congress banning plastics. Then I wouldn't be able to use straws or plastic shopping bags. Wait, I think those are already banned. :)
Well, the first thing that would happen is that some zealot would have a bill before Congress banning plastics. Then I wouldn't be able to use straws or plastic shopping bags. Wait, I think those are already banned. :)You could change your behavior without the necessity of passing any law or regulation. Your behavior is up to you. If you like your plastic straws and plastic bags, you could save and re-use them.
You could change your behavior without the necessity of passing any law or regulation. Your behavior is up to you. If you like your plastic straws and plastic bags, you could save and re-use them.Thanks for the tip. :)
A lightning bolt is thought to have struck the 15m structure at a time when a large number of hikers were at the summit, and the current then travelled along a metal railing.
"We heard that after (the) lightning struck, people fell. The current then continued along the chains securing the ascent, striking everyone along the way."
A doubling of CO2 levels results in approximately a 1/3rd increase in rice yields, all else remaining the same. If you were living in a poverty stricken community where people were starving and undernourished, and someone offered you a choice of 90 Kg of polished white rice grown in preindustrial CO2 levels of 280 ppm, or 133 Kg of brown rice grown in twice the levels of CO2 (560 ppm), which would you choose? (I've used the figure 90 instead of 100, for the white rice, on the assumption that about 10% of the mass is thrown away during polishing).
“The best scientific evidence is that there is a strong link between climate change and clear air turbulence,” said Paul Williams, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Reading in the U.K. “When someone says global warming, we think about the fact that it’s getting warmer,” he said. “And that’s true, it is, but the climate is changing in the upper atmosphere as well.”
According to research conducted by Williams, the type of “severe clear air turbulence” experienced by passengers aboard Air Canada flight AC33 in July 2019 – which resulted in an emergency landing at Honolulu’s international airport and sent 37 people to hospital – could double or even triple as carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere rise. That’s because more C02 means warmer temperatures, which means shifting wind patterns with stronger and less predictable airflow, Williams said. This also means occurrences of severe clear air turbulence will become more common.
Ray, doubling of CO2 levels causes not only 30% increase of rice yields, but potentially also a 300% increase of air turbulence for airplanes. Warming temperatures create larger storms and as the jet stream shifts northward, we get more frequent and stronger instances of air turbulence which affect air traffic.
And not only that. In order for more biomass to grow, the soil must provide nutrients and there must be the right amount of water. Both are not guaranteed as a result of climate change (droughts vs increased precipitation). In addition, harmful (sometimes exotic) insects usually thrive at higher temperatures and weeds can also compete with the more desirable plant growth. This may also increase the need to use herbicides and insecticides, and if runoff is caused by heavy rainfall, the aquatic life may also suffer from algae blooms in a competition for oxygen.I've tried making this point to some of Ray's previous comments as well. Plant breeders will have to change their approach. The big problem with higher levels of CO2 is biomass production which is what weeds do really well. We don't know if the dwarf wheat varieties that revolutionized that crop will be best adapted to higher CO2 levels or not. The system is complex and arguments that enhanced CO2 will lead to increased crop yields may not be accurate. there are also environmental and energy impacts (the latter reflected in the energy needed for fertilizer production) that are likely to increase. TNSTAAFL!!! (There's No Such Thing As A Free Lunch)
Cheers,
Bart
As I've been saying, climate change has negative and positive consequences. I think there are more positive consequences as it gets warmer and as most species have done much better in the warming up since the Ice Age. So another couple of degrees will just be better for us. I'm glad we're talking about both sides of the equation now. We've only been hearing the negative side.
Or in other words, one man's problems are another man's opportunities. Although the pest exterminators will definitely benefit from the onslaught of harmful insects and rodents which thrive at hot temperatures, I am witnessing more negative effects than positive consequences. Now, if you get all heavily sprayed produce from the supermarket, you wouldn't be aware of all the harmful insects which proliferate in the hot weather.I'm sorry you have to deal with all those bugs. But realistically, two degrees warmer in summer means that your location in "colder" Canada brings you equivalently down in latitude of the earth, what, a couple of hundred miles south. You would then experience the same weather conditions currently experienced in let's say Albany, New York and the Hudson Valley, still way above from where most of the US dwells. What people forget about, is that our mean temperature varies a lot due to where we live on the earth. We're all not at the same latitude and average temperature. I think that for regular Canadian farmers, they would appreciate a longer growing season they would get due to higher temperatures year around despite the additional bugs. It would improve their crop yields and make them richer.
But because I like my home grown tomatoes and kale better than the ones from the store, I have been fighting those pests all summer long, and that impacts not only my stress levels but also my free time. And while the CO2 may hypothetically increase the rice yield in some faraway country, those bugs and caterpillars are reducing significantly my own garden harvest. If those leaf eating pests are not kept in check, they would effectively destroy the entire plants and even mature berry bushes which require several years to get to a proper and fruit-bearing size. In addition, the higher temperatures and drier weather have increased also the need for water consumption to keep my little farm operation alive. So, I vote for two degrees cooler summers.
Here's another point of view from the Farmers' Almanac: https://wtop.com/weather-news/2019/08/what-the-farmers-almanac-is-predicting-for-the-d-c-metro-area-this-winter/ (https://wtop.com/weather-news/2019/08/what-the-farmers-almanac-is-predicting-for-the-d-c-metro-area-this-winter/)The last paragraph in that article has something that Les may be interested in. :) Does anyone farm bugs?
The last paragraph in that article has something that Les may be interested in. :) Does anyone farm bugs?
"Beyond weather, the 2020 Farmers’ Almanac includes articles on natural remedies, what bugs are safe and tasty to eat, how animals survive extreme weather, ways to melt ice more naturally, life hacks and gardening tips."
Does anyone farm bugs?
I am allergic to bugs. I can't stand when they bite me, and I won't eat them either.You just reminded me that for the last two years, two of my flowering plants have been eaten by something, probably bunnies. My wife didn't like the plants anyway.
In addition to the bugs, I have to deal also with other wildlife. Had to erect a fence around my vegetable patch to keep out several wild bunnies running around my backyard. I don't use any herbicide in my backyard, and they seem to like that. They seem to be getting bolder and plumper every day, by now they will let me shoot them from only about 4 feet distance. Below is an intimate portrait of one trespasser right in the clover patch beside my deck, so as you can see they are eating healthy organic food. I already found an old-fashioned recipe for a piquant Hungarian paprikash.
Yes. And just today, we hear that pet-owners are being urged to feed insect-based food to their animals: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49450935 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-49450935).Our mini-poodle, since passed away, ate the best steaks that I ate. We tried dog food, but he turned his nose up to everything we tried. My wife would have poisoned me had I tried bug food. :o
Jeremy
Our mini-poodle, since passed away, ate the best steaks that I ate. We tried dog food, but he turned his nose up to everything we tried. My wife would have poisoned me had I tried bug food. :o
What did he die of? High cholesterol?No, he did have diabetes after gaining a lot of weight after he started to have seizures and we put him on medicine to stop the seizures. Unfortunately, it also made him hungry all the time and he gained a lot of weight. That;s probably how he got diabetes. Once he choked on a spare rib. Stopped breathing. I had to give him mouth to snout resuscitation to bring him back to life. Really! I'm sure we didn't do him any favors. He did live to 14 1/2 so I guess that's about normal for a poodle. He was a great dog and we loved him a lot. We buried him in a pet sematary with a headstone, etc. Forget the cost. :o
And not only that. In order for more biomass to grow due to the increased CO2 levels, the soil must provide nutrients and there must be the right amount of water.
Both are not guaranteed as a result of climate change (droughts vs increased precipitation).
Climate change deniers usually cherry-pick one specific benefit, but deliberately ignore the (more) negative effects that are almost inevitable in a closed-loop ecosystem.
We do not live in a controlled laboratory, sheltered from the outside world, but we live as part of a large system that struggles to adapt to the unprecedented pace of change.
BTW, talking about extreme weather, we are experiencing our third heatwave in 3 months time this year, temperatures have never been this high in the respective months since they were first formally recorded more than 100 years ago. The numbers of excess deaths for this run are not known yet (we have another day and a half to go before normal temperatures set in), but the National Heatplan is in effect again.
I've tried making this point to some of Ray's previous comments as well. Plant breeders will have to change their approach. The big problem with higher levels of CO2 is biomass production which is what weeds do really well. We don't know if the dwarf wheat varieties that revolutionized that crop will be best adapted to higher CO2 levels or not.
The system is complex and arguments that enhanced CO2 will lead to increased crop yields may not be accurate. there are also environmental and energy impacts (the latter reflected in the energy needed for fertilizer production) that are likely to increase. TNSTAAFL!!! (There's No Such Thing As A Free Lunch)
Ray, I need you to take a look at my lawn and shrubs. :)
Interesting article on CO2 and O2 and the burning of the Amazon. The lungs of the world apparently are safe.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/08/amazon-fire-earth-has-plenty-oxygen/596923/
However, plants do release more oxygen than they take in, and also convert into oxygen all the CO2 that they take in.The oxygen released by plants comes not from CO2 but split water molecules during photosynthesis. the oxygen of the CO2 is fixed into sugars during the Calvin Cycle.
The Balearic/Pitiusa islands yesterday, heights of summer:
https://www.thelocal.es/20190828/balaeric-islands-battered-in-violent-storms-majorca
The tv showed much more detail, including waterspout (here, in the Med!) and destructive hail, with shutters and roofs smashed. Vinyards wiped out, a source of highly priced local wines.
Mr T, you are as wilfully blind as our - unfortunately - Mr J.
Rob
I'm sorry about the damage and injuries and deaths. We're about ready to get hit by another hurricane ourselves. But these are both weather events you can read about in the ancient bible. It's not right to blame two people for them.
The Bible.
Alan, philosophical beliefs aside, if you take it as your guide, then tell me when next the Red Sea gets parted and it rains for forty days and nights in a row, and who has the plans for a wooden boat that both floats, maintains its shape without collapsing of its own weight and cargo, and is big enough to carry one pair of each of everything that breaths, eats, copulates and lives on this planet at the same period of time, plus the food to feed 'em and the pails to "bucket and chuck it" whilst afloat.
Weather events. Nothing at all to do with civilized man. Hell, you might as well blame your personal version of God then, right? Your insurance company would have no difficulty trying that!
Of course you are about to get hit: for your neck of the woods, it's normal. Which is the bloody point: for us, it is not normal, never has been!
The oxygen released by plants comes not from CO2 but split water molecules during photosynthesis. the oxygen of the CO2 is fixed into sugars during the Calvin Cycle.
That's interesting. How do you determine that an oxygen molecule emitted by a plant comes from the water it has absorbed and not the CO2 it has absorbed? Molecules of the same elements don't have individual name tags do they? ;)
You unfortunately got hit similarly last year and 10 people died. It seems it's more normal than you believe.
In a country (with a large part of it below sea-level) that has been used to getting the water (rain and Alpine meltwater flowing through the rivers) out of the country as quickly as possible for centuries, we are now redesigning the way we manage water by buffering it in local storage facilities. This is can be put to good use in periods of prolonged drought, during which dikes shrink and become unstable and the pressure of the seawater salinates the inlands. It also allows reducing the risk of overstressing the dikes during extreme downpours. There are now town squares that are designed to be flooded to store excess water, and give it more time to sink in the soil or be transported out by the sewer system at a slower pace.
The local weather extremes have begun causing all sorts of new issues.
Cheers,
Bart
Yours is a relatively wealthy country. The challenges are also very obviously existential, which focusses minds a lot! See that happening now in the last few days pre-Brexit! Probably too little too late. How I pray I am mistaken.
I was here. I have been here for almost thirty-eight years. I know what is normal. Neither event was normal.
That's the entire point we are trying to illustrate for you and other doubting persons.
During that period described above, I have seen winters change from regular, dramatic thunder and lightning-filled events, to not much of anything seasons. Temperatures have risen in winter, with the annual snow-topped mountains display lasting no more than a week at most. I also know it personally from the distinct relief from the pain in my hands that my Raynauds brings about in very cold weather. I used to sit here and type wearing gloves without fingertip; no need for that now. Even my electricity bills have dropped noticeably.
On the other side of the coin, regular winter rainfall has largely disappeared, in a land that relies heavily on two large reservoirs in the mountains. In its place we have witnessed these freak conditions where the clouds burst and overpower all the natural and man-made clearance systems.
The island is criss-crossed with torrentes, naturally carved gullies that drain rainfall away from the mountains and hills, down to the flatlands and the sea. These are dry all summer, fill with weeds, shrubs and even trees that seldom get removed, and then when the rain hits hard, the floods arrive to everyone in the local townhall's surprise! Locally, those in power at the sharp end have developed the blind eye that, as you know, has killed.
Apparently the 2018 and 2019 storms weren't the whole storm history you speak of. In 2015 there were tornadoes there. They also had major flooding. And in 2010 as well as 2013...
Alan, this is really a recent history, doesn't add anything to your argument. Something like 100 or 500 years back might work.Google doesn;t seem to go back that far. :) It's the best I can find so far. Any help would be appreciated. :)
Apparently the 2018 and 2019 storms weren't the whole storm history you speak of. In 2015 there were tornadoes there. They also had major flooding. And in 2010 as well as 2013, there were hailstones in the nearby mainland that killed a lot of flamingos, the poor things. Of course, hail isn't part of warming, so it's all very confusing. Maybe your memory isn;t so good any more?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-3220946/The-terrifying-moment-TORNADOES-struck-coast-Ibiza-storm-sent-boats-crashing-rocks-uprooted-trees-damaged-houses.html
Google doesn;t seem to go back that far. :) It's the best I can find so far. Any help would be appreciated. :)
In any case, Rob's complained it only happened once, this year. I was just pointing out that memories fade, even recent memories. ;)
I do not have the answer to that, but I could imagine that an experiment with Oxygen isotopes (the 18-O / 16-O ratio) could give a clue.
So in a way, they can have "name tags".
I was here. I have been here for almost thirty-eight years. I know what is normal. Neither event was normal.
That's the entire point we are trying to illustrate for you and other doubting persons.
The number of allergy sufferers has grown, research shows. One in 10 Americans struggled with hay fever in 1970, and 3 in 10 did by 2000. Asthma, which can be made worse by exposure to pollen, has become more common too, with higher rates among kids, low-income households and African Americans. Experts think climate change shares some of the blame for this. Warmer temperatures increase the level of airborne pollen because, scientists say, the growing season has, well, grown.
Between 1995 and 2011, fewer freeze-free days meant 11 to 27 days added to pollen season for most of the United States, research shows. The Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, which does an annual survey of allergy season, noticed that it's been growing each year. With warmer temperatures, parts of the country are going to get even worse for allergies because plants like ragweed will start migrating north, studies show. New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine will probably see a lot more pollen in the future.
Why should anyone expect that we now live in an era where no severe and devastating weather events should occur, and if they do, it must be our fault for emitting CO2?
Bart and I have posted dozens of links to material which shows why this is so. Just saying "oh well, everything changes all the time" is not anything that resembles a sensible argument.
Yes indeed, but it becomes a fixed idea that there are no penalties to pay for altering the chemical balance of our atmosphere. I only studied Physics and Chemistry up to Highers level (Scottish), but learned enough to understand that there is no such thing as a one-sided alteration to the status quo: every action brings about a reaction.
That pumping zillions of tons of car exhaust (just one source of pollutant) into the air is not going to have a reaction on that air/atmosphere is cloud cuckoo land. It surprises me that otherwise brilliant people can force themselves to believe that the world can continue doing this without it having any effect. Because nature has given us volcanic eruptions and other natural disasters is not a valid reason to continue happily on our dangerous way; if anything, those events should be seen as what they are: natural disasters, not as some sort of benign contribution to the finer quality of life. We have seen only too clearly what recent eruptions have done to the world. Those eruptions subside, and after a while the solids come back down to Earth, but what about the lighter than air particles and gasses? Imagining that our own contributions to the mess, on a daily basis and with little appetite to desist, can do anything but increase the damage beggars belief. Yet, it's what they argue.
I, for one, could not make that up.
Rob
Yes indeed, but it becomes a fixed idea that there are no penalties to pay for altering the chemical balance of our atmosphere. I only studied Physics and Chemistry up to Highers level (Scottish), but learned enough to understand that there is no such thing as a one-sided alteration to the status quo: every action brings about a reaction.
That pumping zillions of tons of car exhaust (just one source of pollutant) into the air is not going to have a reaction on that air/atmosphere is cloud cuckoo land. It surprises me that otherwise brilliant people can force themselves to believe that the world can continue doing this without it having any effect. Because nature has given us volcanic eruptions and other natural disasters is not a valid reason to continue happily on our dangerous way; if anything, those events should be seen as what they are: natural disasters, not as some sort of benign contribution to the finer quality of life. We have seen only too clearly what recent eruptions have done to the world. Those eruptions subside, and after a while the solids come back down to Earth, but what about the lighter than air particles and gasses? Imagining that our own contributions to the mess, on a daily basis and with little appetite to desist, can do anything but increase the damage beggars belief. Yet, it's what they argue.
I, for one, could not make that up.
Rob
You certainly have made it up, Rob. Either that, or you're very confused about the whole issue.
I've never had a conversation with anyone who believes that it's okay to pump zillions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere. Toxic waste from industrial activities, plastic waste and general rubbish discarded randomly into the landscape, smog in the atmosphere consisting of particulate carbon from coal-fired power plants and vehicles with inadequate emission controls, and other pollutants from cars, such as Carbon Monoxide, Hydrocarbons, and various Nitrogen Oxides, need to be controlled and significantly reduced. No sensible person would argue against that.
The latest 'state-of-the-art' emission controls reduce these pollutants from coal-fired power plants and vehicles to insignificant levels, especially when the 'state-of-the-art' emission controls are combined with the more efficient Ultra-Supercritical coal power plants.
Unfortunately, some of the Ultra-Supercritical plants are not combined with the latest emission controls, because of the additional construction and maintenance costs.
From the United States Environmental Protection Agency:
https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/progress-cleaning-air-and-improving-peoples-health#cars
"Compared to 1970 vehicle models, new cars, SUVs and pickup trucks are roughly 99 percent cleaner for common pollutants (hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and particle emissions), while Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled has dramatically increased." Refer attached graph.
The confusion lies in the misrepresentation of CO2 as a pollutant. I bought a new car last year which I'm very pleased with. However, I wish it had been an electric car at a similar price because they are potentially more efficient, and no matter how effective the emission controls are in the latest petrol-driven vehicles, they still produce noise pollution.
Unfortunately, the electric vehicle has been rather slow in development partly because of the conflict between their perceived benefit in reducing all CO2 emissions and the necessity of having a reliable electricity supply for recharging, which requires a continuation and even a growth of fossil fuel power plants which emit the non-polluting CO2.
Imagine a million people in a large city attempting to recharge their electric vehicles at the same time, after returning from the day's work. Solar and Wind power, even with back-up gasoline generators, wouldn't be able to handle it.
...and global warming but a myth.
It's all politics, and as long as you have even two people left on the earth you'll have politics.
Here's an interesting article from a very qualified contrarian on the climatic significance of anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the huge inaccuracies of climate models.
The author, Dr J.R. Christy is so qualified, I suspect Bart will call him a 'crackpot', attacking the person rather than the evidence. ;D
Since you don’t present any evidence that will be tricky.
Try to be more rational.
I've given you a summary of his view which also mentions the existence of a 100 peer-reviewed publications, which you can find if you're interested. If I were to present the actual evidence, it would be several hundred pages or more. This is not the site for that. Try to be more rational.
Good luck with that.
Not really - you quoted some trivial analogy.
Here's an interesting article from a very qualified contrarian on the climatic significance of anthropogenic CO2 emissions and the huge inaccuracies of climate models.Ray, In fairness to my own theories, and yours I believe, that it's not enough time to "test" global warming theories, isn;t it also not enough time to prove this researcher's theories either? 15 years to "re-prove" his theory and other short term collection by questionable means raises issues regardless of which theory may be proposed. There could well be other factors neither side has considered that may add weight one way or the other.
The author, Dr J.R. Christy is so qualified, I suspect Bart will call him a 'crackpot', attacking the person rather than the evidence. ;D
About the author
"Dr John R. Christy is the director of the Earth System Science Center, Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Alabama State Climatologist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, where he has been employed for over 30 years. His responsibilities include managing a science centre with over 80 employees, working on several research projects ranging from developing and launching space-based instruments to studying impacts of significant weather events in developing countries, to high-resolution studies of air pollution (air-chemistry and meteorology). His own research concerns developing, constructing and refining global and regional climate data records that can be used to test claims of climate variability and change and to understand the climate’s sensitivity to various forcing factors. This work has resulted in almost 100 peer-reviewed publications.
This paper is based a talk given by Dr Christy at the Palace of Westminster on 8 May 2019."
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2019/05/JohnChristy-Parliament.pdf (https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2019/05/JohnChristy-Parliament.pdf)
"If an engineer built an airplane and said it could fly 600 miles and the thing ran out of fuel at 200 and crashed, he wouldn’t say ‘Hey, I was only off by a factor of three’. We don’t do that in engineering and real science. A factor of three is huge in the energy balance system. Yet that’s what we see in the climate models."
Below is an interesting cartoon representing the balance that our planet naturally creates.
By the way, in order to understand this article you need at least the capacity to understand the DXOMark graphs comparing camera sensor performance. ;D
So you didn't bother reading the article. Right?
I did read the article and concluded that it is not a peer reviewed scientific paper but (I assume a summary of) a talk held for a thinktank that has a somewhat dubious reputation.
That doesn't say much about Dr. Christy but his conclusions seem to be proven wrong by the recent record of actual temperature rise. Others who have spent a bit more time on looking at his claims in that presentation, seem to object to the so-called evidence he produces:
And although I have not read enough of his work to have an opinion about his work, there are others who have commented on a number of his statements:
https://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_John_Christy.htm
So you didn't bother reading the article. Right?
Correct. I deduced from the forum and from the quote you provided that it was rhetoric not science.
How about giving us an idea of what you think is "science," Jeremy?
Science (from the Latin word scientia, meaning "knowledge") is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.
Okay, Bart, give me an example of a "testable explanation" associated with climate change: something other than the "testable explanation" that the earth gets warmer and it gets cooler and it has done those things off and on as far back in time as we can find evidence to support our findings.
Why something other?The only true test is did the climate change? Did it get warmer? Since we won;t know that for decades maybe centuries or millennia, you're only describing short term inconclusive data.
We can measure the temperature (the conditions are standardized by the WMO), air-temperature on land, water-temperature at sea, air-temperature in the troposphere, and do that systematically in many places for a long period of time. That shows that they are generally rising globally, more so in the Northern hemisphere (relatively more land-mass) than the Southern hemisphere (relatively more water-mass).
We can measure the Sun's energy as it reaches the earth's surface, and we can measure the reflected energy back into space. The reflected energy has longer wavelengths than the incoming energy.
This longer wavelength of reflected energy is partly absorbed by the CO2 molecules in the air which was more transparent for the shorter wavelengths that allowed them to reach the earth's surface in the first place.
By colliding with other molecules in the air, the atmosphere heats up. Usually more at lower altitudes and less at higher altitudes on average.
The warmer atmosphere can contain more water-vapor which also traps reflected energy but more at different wavelengths than CO2 does. They kind of complement each other.
I could go on with more examples of individually testable phenomena that add to the body of Scientific knowledge.
Hope that helps.
Cheers,
Bart
Why something other?
We can measure the temperature (the conditions are standardized by the WMO), air-temperature on land, water-temperature at sea, air-temperature in the troposphere, and do that systematically in many places for a long period of time. That shows that they are generally rising globally, more so in the Northern hemisphere (relatively more land-mass) than the Southern hemisphere (relatively more water-mass).
We can measure the Sun's energy as it reaches the earth's surface, and we can measure the reflected energy back into space. The reflected energy has longer wavelengths than the incoming energy.
This longer wavelength of reflected energy is partly absorbed by the CO2 molecules in the air which was more transparent for the shorter wavelengths that allowed them to reach the earth's surface in the first place.
By colliding with other molecules in the air, the atmosphere heats up. Usually more at lower altitudes and less at higher altitudes on average.
The warmer atmosphere can contain more water-vapor which also traps reflected energy but more at different wavelengths than CO2 does. They kind of complement each other.
I could go on with more examples of individually testable phenomena that add to the body of Scientific knowledge.
Hope that helps.
Cheers,
Bart
Absolutely, Bart. And the sun rises in the morning and sets at night. That's another testable phenomenon, added to "the body of scientific knowledge." So what? What we're after is cause and effect, and in climate "science" there are no testable phenomena that can conclusively make a connection between CO2 emissions and climate.
Absolutely, Bart. And the sun rises in the morning and sets at night.
And, with hurricane Dorian developing, here is some info about the connection between Hurricanes and Global Warming:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pa8duiMiS0
It is a video posted 9 years ago, but I think that not much has changed in the Scientific consensus that existed then. If it has, I'm all ears.
Cheers,
Bart
Bart The video link you posted gives a lecture on how hurricanes ARE NOT increasing. I think you cherry picked the wrong video that supports my side. :)
... I sympathize with the people of the Bahama's, Florida, and the Carolina's...
I just cancelled our evacuation tickets, as the path has changed in the last 24 hours. You guys can't predict a hurricane path one day in advance, and yet want us to believe you are capable of predicting a much more complex system, like climate, 50 years from now!?
I have never seen an evacuation ticket. What does that buy you?
I just cancelled our evacuation tickets, as the path has changed in the last 24 hours. You guys can't predict a hurricane path one day in advance, and yet want us to believe you are capable of predicting a much more complex system, like climate, 50 years from now!?
Last week, the world received yet another stark reminder of what's yet to come as temperatures at the highest point of the Greenland ice sheet rose above freezing and melted the snow there for the first time since July 2012 and perhaps only the third time in the last 700 years. The glacier-covered island lost 12.5 billion tons of ice in one day.
As climate scientist Martin Stendel points out, that's enough to cover all of Florida with almost five inches of water. Or, in metric units, enough to cover Germany with almost 7cm of water. Or Denmark with half a meter of water.
The ice sheet that covers Greenland is about the same size as the state of Alaska and contains enough ice to raise sea level across the globe by more than 20 feet. Every year, Greenland gains ice during the winter from the accumulation of compacted snow and then during the summer months, it loses ice from melt water and icebergs that calve into the ocean.
A particularly warm, dry spring this year left only a thin covering of snow over exposed glacial ice. The planet has just had it's warmest June on record, followed by the warmest July on record, consequently ice everywhere has been melting, from the glaciers of Greenland to the Himalayas.
Both you and Bernard are playing with historic, actual data. Where is the predictive part?
Both you and Bernard are playing with historic, actual data. Where is the predictive part?+1
Both, the weather and stock market forecasting gurus use historic data for modeling and prediction of future trends.
Neither camp gets it quite right.
Greenland's Massive Ice Melt Wasn't Supposed To Happen Until 2070
https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottsnowden/2019/08/16/greenlands-massive-ice-melt-wasnt-supposed-to-happen-until-2070/#7f9e68e64894
The odds that the earth is warming up and whether it will happen never change. It is what it is; we don;t really know those odds anymore than we know what the odds are on each horse winning in that race. What changes are people's beliefs as to the odds. So if 97% of the people think it's going to get hot, the odds seem more likely. But in truth, it doesn;t matter what people believe. It will be based on what actually is and those factors are often unknown or cannot be allocated correctly in the algorithms being used. That's why economist predictions are wrong, as are climatologists, and horse betters.
Anyway, this is my new theory just developed this morning. It's open for adjustments and fine tuning. :)
Weird use of probabilities. The chance of global warming in the case we do nothing is why it is. What changes is the chance that we accurately assess that probability and also the chance that we can influence the chance of global warming if we take action. The 97% (or whatever yuur favourite number is) is kit the chance of GW, it's the likelihood that we currently correctly assess the likelihood of GW.In 2008, 97% of economists thought the economy was just fine. They weren't looking at the data that showed housing was way overpriced. There was a huge bubble that either wasn't seen or ignored by the 97%. But there it was. A few people saw it and made loads of money selling mortgage instruments short. But the collapse was going to happen even though 97% said it wouldn;t.
I recommend you think of another theory :-)
Belief does not affect outcomes; even beliefs at 97% confidence.
Actually, the handicappers and economists can predict better than the climatologists. The first two have some past results they can compare too to draw some confidence in their formulas. The climatologist does not have any man made experiences they're drawing their conclusions with. It's never been tested.The origin of the co2 does not have any bearing on the prediction so this is a weird thing to say,
It's all based on hope and faith they're right. Sounds like a religious experience.It may sound like that to you but that's only because you don't understand it.
Correct. And nobody suggested that it does. Another straw man.Your point is in conflict with your sides argument about climate change. The whole prediction for global warming is that it is due to man-made increase of CO2 caused by our burning of fossil fuels. Are you now denying this is the prediction?
The origin of the co2 does not have any bearing on the prediction so this is a weird thing to say,
It may sound like that to you but that's only because you don't understand it.
Your point is in conflict with your sides argument about climate change. The whole prediction for global warming is that it is due to man-made increase of CO2 caused by our burning of fossil fuels. Are you now denying this is the prediction?
No. It just means that you didn't read what I wrote carefully enough.
OK. So I didn't understand. Please clarify what you meant.
I was responding to your statement The climatologist does not have any man made experiences they're drawing their conclusions with.There are different things going on between volcanoes and man producing CO2. Other elements, methane, etc. They may or may not be similar or causal in the same ways. Knowing what volcanoes in the past did would be a good predictor of what volcanoes would do in the future. But since we never had man produce CO2 before as we are now, there are no predictors regarding the current situation. We would have to wait 50-100 years or more to test the theories.
The link between climate and CO2 exists (or doesn't) regardless of whether the experience is man made or not (for example if a huge volcano had piped out the same CO2 as man, and the climate did or didn't warm, that would be a test).
No. It just means that you didn't read what I wrote carefully enough.
There are different things going on between volcanoes and man producing CO2. Other elements, methane, etc. They may or may not be similar or causal in the same ways. Knowing what volcanoes in the past did would be a good predictor of what volcanoes would do in the future. But since we never had man produce CO2 before as we are now, there are no predictors regarding the current situation. We would have to wait 50-100 years or more to test the theories.
CO2 is CO2
I need to get on with my life.
The link between climate and CO2 exists (or doesn't) regardless of whether the experience is man made or not (for example if a huge volcano had piped out the same CO2 as man, and the climate did or didn't warm, that would be a test).
That seems a rather flawed example because volcanoes do not emit only CO2.
Again, folks determinedly miss the point: whether it's Mama Nature farting in her sleep or a few zillion cows imitating her in their fields or sheds, volcanoes demonstrating their temper tantrums, the fact remains that mankind itself must do its bit to help keep down such emissions.
That is the simple fact of the matter. Measure until you grow old and feeble, but that fact remains: you, the general broader you, as a responsible - and perhaps sensible human - must also do your bit. Maths tells you so: the less you add, the lower the total; the more you subtract, the lower the total; and guess what: the more you add the higher the total.
What's to dispute, unless you do so for the helluva it, in which case you are contributing to more wasted energy and rising temperatures.
Apparently natural volcanic and man-made CO2 emissions have the same carbon isotopic fingerprint.
This makes it impossible to determine how much of the current, elevated CO2 levels are due to the burning of fossil fuels, and how much are due to volcanic activity.
Here's an article linking recent research on volcanic CO2 emissions.
He is proud to have worked for mining and oil companies that practiced responsible harvesting of materials necessary to sustain human life; Becker Industries, ARCO, Cross Timbers, Texaco, Fina, Union 76, and BTA Oil Producers LLC. He is currently retired.
And here is a more detailed explanation (10 main lines of evidence to be considered) of the same process of determining the man-made origin, i.e. from burning fossil fuel:
Climate change cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
https://skepticalscience.com/anthrocarbon-brief.html
And here's more evidence of the CO2 isotope ratios telling us a clear tale:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/mixing.html
A falling amount of 13-C, and an absence of 14-C, is caused by a net increase of 12-C (coming from very old plantbased material).
Cheers,
Bart
And here is a more detailed explanation (10 main lines of evidence to be considered) of the same process of determining the man-made origin, i.e. from burning fossil fuel:
Climate change cluedo: Anthropogenic CO2
https://skepticalscience.com/anthrocarbon-brief.html
And here's more evidence of the CO2 isotope ratios telling us a clear tale:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/mixing.html
A falling amount of 13-C, and an absence of 14-C, is caused by a net increase of 12-C (coming from very old plantbased material).
Cheers,
Bart
I'm back. :) I surprised I haven't heard any arguments or read any articles that Hurricane Dorian's severe and unusual tracking is due to global warming. So many have argued recently that we're having more severe storms because of global warming. Have these people changed their minds?
Three Category 5 hurricanes have hit the mainland U.S. or U.S. territories, including Puerto Rico, since Trump was inaugurated: Irma and Maria in 2017, and Michael in 2018. Between them, the storms caused about $165 billion in damage.
The hurricane changed its Florida-bound trajectory, but I don't think people have changed their minds about the effect of climate change on hurricanes.I was reading that the Bahamas got hit with a similar severe storm in 1935 before the industrial revolution and Trump was born. I wonder what caused it? :)
It's well known fact that hurricanes form over the warm ocean water of the tropics. The warm water heats the air, the hot air rises, cold air replaces it, then it warms up again and the cycle continues creating large storm clouds. The warmer the ocean, the stronger and more frequent the hurricanes.
Lately, there was also a lot of turbulence in the stock market. A lot of damage and strong swings due to hot air. The season is not over yet.QuoteThree Category 5 hurricanes have hit the mainland U.S. or U.S. territories, including Puerto Rico, since Trump was inaugurated: Irma and Maria in 2017, and Michael in 2018. Between them, the storms caused about $165 billion in damage.https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-31/trump-helicopters-into-golf-course-after-staying-back-for-storm?srnd=premium-canada (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-31/trump-helicopters-into-golf-course-after-staying-back-for-storm?srnd=premium-canada)
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-31/trump-helicopters-into-golf-course-after-staying-back-for-storm?srnd=premium-canada (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-31/trump-helicopters-into-golf-course-after-staying-back-for-storm?srnd=premium-canada)
I was reading that the Bahamas got hit with a similar severe storm in 1935 before the industrial revolution and Trump was born. I wonder what caused it? :)
"severe storm in 1935 before the industrial revolution "Pick one.
Whose industrial revolution ?
Well said, that's common sense. Who would argue with that?
Some lads have no sense of humor.
Dorian is no laughing matter.
When you let climate alarmists narrate hurricanes:
https://twitter.com/_hanya_m/status/1167157777518735360?s=12
Moi.
Life's a beach.
Look at the rise of massive wildfires across the globe. From testing inside an active fire, to studying a blaze in a lab, scientists search for ways to reduce the dangers these infernos pose.
Looks like the fight against global warming is over when the liberal New Yorker Magazine comes out against it. The world must be coming to an end, for sure.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/what-if-we-stopped-pretending
The first condition is that every one of the world’s major polluting countries institute draconian conservation measures, shut down much of its energy and transportation infrastructure, and completely retool its economy...
... Finally, overwhelming numbers of human beings, including millions of government-hating Americans, need to accept high taxes and severe curtailment of their familiar life styles without revolting. They must accept the reality of climate change and have faith in the extreme measures taken to combat it. They can’t dismiss news they dislike as fake. They have to set aside nationalism and class and racial resentments. They have to make sacrifices for distant threatened nations and distant future generations. They have to be permanently terrified by hotter summers and more frequent natural disasters, rather than just getting used to them. Every day, instead of thinking about breakfast, they have to think about death....
... any movement toward a more just and civil society can now be considered a meaningful climate action. Securing fair elections is a climate action. Combating extreme wealth inequality is a climate action. Shutting down the hate machines on social media is a climate action. Instituting humane immigration policy, advocating for racial and gender equality, promoting respect for laws and their enforcement, supporting a free and independent press, ridding the country of assault weapons—these are all meaningful climate actions.
Looks like the fight against global warming is over when the liberal New Yorker Magazine comes out against it. The world must be coming to an end, for sure.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/what-if-we-stopped-pretending
If you’re younger than sixty, you have a good chance of witnessing the radical destabilization of life on earth—massive crop failures, apocalyptic fires, imploding economies, epic flooding, hundreds of millions of refugees fleeing regions made uninhabitable by extreme heat or permanent drought. If you’re under thirty, you’re all but guaranteed to witness it.
We’ve emitted as much atmospheric carbon in the past thirty years as we did in the previous two centuries of industrialization.
Our atmosphere and oceans can absorb only so much heat before climate change, intensified by various feedback loops, spins completely out of control. The consensus among scientists and policy-makers is that we’ll pass this point of no return if the global mean temperature rises by more than two degrees Celsius (maybe a little more, but also maybe a little less). The I.P.C.C.—the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—tells us that, to limit the rise to less than two degrees, we not only need to reverse the trend of the past three decades. We need to approach zero net emissions, globally, in the next three decades.
When a scientist predicts a rise of two degrees Celsius, she’s merely naming a number about which she’s very confident: the rise will be at least two degrees. The rise might, in fact, be far higher. (the author refers to a female scientist, but it could well be also a man).
First of all, even if we can no longer hope to be saved from two degrees of warming, there’s still a strong practical and ethical case for reducing carbon emissions. In the long run, it probably makes no difference how badly we overshoot two degrees; once the point of no return is passed, the world will become self-transforming. In the shorter term, however, half measures are better than no measures. Halfway cutting our emissions would make the immediate effects of warming somewhat less severe, and it would somewhat postpone the point of no return. The most terrifying thing about climate change is the speed at which it’s advancing, the almost monthly shattering of temperature records. If collective action resulted in just one fewer devastating hurricane, just a few extra years of relative stability, it would be a goal worth pursuing.
The point of the article though is "At what cost?" Toi spend so much money trying to change the climate may be more hurtful than setting aside that money to compensate for the change in climate.
Remediation of damage, building of nuclear power plants, etc. Also, what isn't mentioned in the article is that money spent on either reducing carbon or remediation won;t be spent for other things, like feeding people, research to reduce diseases, housing the homeless, etc.
It is 'cheaper' to prevent than attempting to cure when the damage has been done.The thrust of the article is that it is too late to make much of a difference trying to reduce carbon. There's too many people, growing even larger, needing more and more carbon to live. That it's better to spend the money on other things. You have a different analysis, but maybe an incorrect view. So that's the debate. How should the limited resources be allocated? It's not something that you hear people discussing much and it should be.
I put quotes around 'cheaper' because we are also talking about the loss of health and life for many people, not only economic turmoil or loss of property.
There will be even less money for that if it is needed to repair the avoidable disruption of society, and loss of property/livelihoods.
Cheers,
Bart
The thrust of the article is that it is too late to make much of a difference trying to reduce carbon. There's too many people, growing even larger, needing more and more carbon to live. That it's better to spend the money on other things. You have a different analysis, but maybe an incorrect view. So that's the debate. How should the limited resources be allocated? It's not something that you hear people discussing much and it should be.it is amazing to me that you could read that article and come away with that conclusion. No point even debating it.
it is amazing to me that you could read that article and come away with that conclusion. No point even debating it.Forget the article. Debate me. I've been saying in this whole thread, over and over, that we have to consider where to spend limited resources. How much can be allocated without hurting other important things we have to take care of. We can't do everything.
it is amazing to me that you could read that article and come away with that conclusion. No point even debating it.
Then what's the point of your post? If you think the conclusion is erroneous, state your case. Righteous indignation is not a valid argument.As I indicated, it is not worth it to go down that rabbit hole with Alan, or you.
The article is long, and covers a lot. But the central premise, even in the title, is that it might already be too late to stop and reverse climate change and better to concentrate on tackling its consequences. You may disagree with it, but that's what the gist of the article is.
As I indicated, it is not worth it to go down that rabbit hole with Alan, or you.
Then what's the point of your post? If you think the conclusion is erroneous, state your case. Righteous indignation is not a valid argument.
The article is long, and covers a lot. But the central premise, even in the title, is that it might already be too late to stop and reverse climate change and better to concentrate on tackling its consequences. You may disagree with it, but that's what the gist of the article is.
[...] The goal has been clear for thirty years, and despite earnest efforts we’ve made essentially no progress toward reaching it. Today, the scientific evidence verges on irrefutable.
Mary Nichols, head of the California Air Resources Board, who negotiated the agreement with the four automakers, chided the administration for seeking to overturn the deal.
“The U.S. Department of Justice brings its weight to bear against auto companies in an attempt to frighten them out of voluntarily making cleaner, more efficient cars and trucks than EPA wants. Consumers might ask, who is Andy Wheeler protecting?” she said in a statement, referring to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler.
Bart, what's that got to do with Slobodan's point or mine?
I've been recommending that we spend money on other things long before this article recommended the same thing. Maybe he's been reading my posts here. 🤨
Recommending what to do about extreme weather is exactly on off the things what this topic is all about.
Recommending to do nothing is ill-advised.How much should be spent of the budget on preventing climate change? How much of the budget should be spent on remediation of Damages due to climate change? How much of the budget should be sent on cancer research? How much of the budget should be used to develop new cars? How much should the economy change based upon climate change? Should we eliminate carbon producing cars? Should we build more levees to prevent flooding is you do when your country? These things are not being discussed. All we're arguing about is it whether it's real or not? Can't we change the subject?
How much should be spent of the budget on preventing climate change?
It's about changing behavior, perhaps even more than spending money.
Stopping the denial is a start. Getting off one's butt is a start.
You're still stuck. Oh well.
It seems to be you who's stuck.
It's not about cost, it's about action.
It's always about cost. If you want to understand stuff, follow the money. There's only so much to go around. If you spend it here, than there's not enough for there. So everyone fights over where the budget money goes. If it's about action, why are the Chinese refusing to set goals before 2030?
Indeed it is. However, money can become nearly worthless if the economy is seriously mismanaged. In my view, there are things that are more fundamental than money, and which underpin all economies. Those are;
(1) A reliable supply of energy.
(2) The actual, true cost of that energy, in terms of labor, machinery and the infrastructure required to produce it.
(3) The innovative, productive and efficient ways in which we use that energy, for the benefit of societies.
Low cost energy combined with the innovative and efficient use of that energy is the basis of China's rapid and extraordinary economic development.
However, China's rapid economic development through the use of cheap energy from fossil fuels (as well as cheap labor), did have an uncalculated hidden cost, which is the health costs of the 'real' pollution from vehicles and coal-fired power stations with inadequate emission controls.
China has been tackling that problem for a number of years by decommissioning the older, polluting power stations, and replacing them with the modern Ultra-Supercritical type, as well as renewable energy. Here's an interesting news item about the current construction of such a plant in Poland. The 1,000 megawatt plant will be operational in 2023.
https://www.ge.com/reports/ultra-super-critical-thinking-high-tech-turbines-giving-coal-new-lease-life/
The main problem with these Ultra-Supercritical coal plants is that CO2 has been mischaracterized as a 'pollutant', therefore most alarmist laypersons do not see them as 'pollution free' because CO2 is still emitted, although in lower quantities per unit of energy produced.
Carbon capture and storage is too expensive, but how about a synergistic option which capitalizes on the undeniable benefits of CO2. Farmers have been pumping CO2 into their Greenhouses for decades because they know that it increases crop growth substantially, although the amount of increased growth can vary according to plant type and other conditions. Here's an article that addresses the benefits of various Greenhouse techniques.
https://www.edaphic.com.au/5-reasons-why-co2-levels-are-controlled-at-night/
My proposal, which I think is very sensible and practical, is that all new coal-fired power stations should be of the Ultra-supercritical variety, which should also include state-of-the-art emission controls of chemicals which are harmful to human health, and that such coal-fired plants should be surrounded by large Greenhouses.
All the CO2 emissions from the coal power-plants should be funneled into the Greenhouses. Nominate me for a Nobel Prize if you wish. ;D
Instead, how about just keeping well away from stones?
;-)
That said, with the islands, what's the solution?
The recent hurricane Dorian which devastated the Bahamas, is very tragic, and my sympathies go out to everyone affected.For the heck of it, I picked one of the early storms to see how much info your link had. 1806 Great Coastal Hurricane. It hit the Bahamas and went up the US coast to Massachusetts then Nova Scotia. 21 people drown in a ship off New Jersey where I live and 36" (91cm) of rain fell in Mass. OF course, being 1806, this was long before there were any substantial CO2 due to the industrial revolution. SO the whole argument Dorian was casued by global warming is just hysteria and fake news.
However, after such an extreme weather event occurs I often do some research on the internet to find out if it really was an unprecedented event and possibly the worst on record. What I find is that it is very rarely the worst on record, in terms of storm intensity, but it might be the worst in terms of the economic cost of destroyed property, due to increased populations and urbanization.
The following Wikipedia article lists all the hurricanes since 1804 that have affected the Bahamas. I was amazed that the number is 56. That works out to one hurricane every 3.8 years, on average. Sometimes there's a gap of several years with no hurricanes, and sometimes there are 2 consecutive hurricanes in 2 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hurricanes_in_the_Bahamas
The number of Category 5 hurricanes to hit the Bahamas during the 20th and 21st centuries is 4. Two of them were between 1932 and 1933, so I don't think one can surmise that hurricanes in this area have been increasing due to CO2 emissions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1932_Bahamas_hurricane
"To date, it is one of four Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes to make landfall in the Bahamas at that intensity, the others having occurred in 1933, 1992, and 2019."
Here are some other links to intense hurricanes of the past.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_Atlantic_hurricanes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hurricane_of_1780
What I find truly disturbing, and far more disturbing than the very uncertain and unpredictable risk of 'runaway, catastrophic climate change', is the idiocy of building homes and infrastructure in areas that have a history of frequent floods and hurricanes, without ensuring that such homes can withstand the force of such previous, known events.
This is crazy. 'Hey! folks. We have the ability to control the climate, because of the marvelous advances in science and technology, but we don't have the ability to protect you from the normal, extreme weather events that we know have occurred regularly throughout history. All we can do is reduce CO2 emissions in the hope that it will stop any increases in such extreme weather events.
In the meantime, you'll just have to accept the destruction and loss of life from natural, extreme weather events, because the priority is to tackle the uncertain risk that such extreme events will become worse, even though the IPCC has not been able to provide any sound evidence that extreme weather events have increased, globally, since 1950.'
Crikey! We're doomed; not from climate change, but from idiocy. :(
Were it only limited to the obvious risk islands, but we know it's not. Britain has its generous share of flood plane buildings too, and only when insurance companies stop offering cover does the gigantic penny drop.May I remind you that the Bahamas was owned by Great Britain, not America. Maybe the Bahamians should request GB to make them British again. America provided at least $10 million in governmental aid plus much rescue and recovery and medical and food help after Dorian. I don;t know how much private charity was given by individual Americans. But it too was substantial. In any case, just dumping on America and our president isn't appreciated. It's become a knee-jerk reaction from many here.
That said, with the islands, what's the solution? Can they ask Donald to make them American so that they can up sticks and, along with Florida, Louisiana, Texas etc., move into Arizona? Considering many Bahamians went there precisely to get out of America, taking their workers with them, that might be an alternative less attractive to holding their breath and going under for a while. The banks would veto that, anyway.
Rob
For the heck of it, I picked one of the early storms to see how much info your link had. 1806 Great Coastal Hurricane. It hit the Bahamas and went up the US coast to Massachusetts then Nova Scotia. 21 people drown in a ship off New Jersey where I live and 36" (91cm) of rain fell in Mass. OF course, being 1806, this was long before there were any substantial CO2 due to the industrial revolution. SO the whole argument Dorian was casued by global warming is just hysteria and fake news.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1806_Great_Coastal_hurricane
But wasn't that only a category 2 hurricane, Alan? Go back further to 1780 and there was a devastating category 5 hurricane in the approximate region.
"The Great Hurricane of 1780, also known as Huracán San Calixto, the Great Hurricane of the Antilles, and the 1780 Disaster, is the deadliest Atlantic hurricane on record. Between 22,000 and 27,501 people died throughout the Lesser Antilles when the storm passed through them from October 10–16.
The hurricane struck Barbados likely as a Category 5 hurricane, with at least one estimate of wind speeds as high as 200 mph"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Hurricane_of_1780
... I suppose weather forecasting has helped people prepare or leave for safer areas...
Indeed. The whole Alabama evacuated at a mere hint from the Meteorologist-In-Chief ;)
If I recall correctly, even the IPCC says that storms haven't been affected by "warming". Maybe you have more current info on this.
Ray, Many hurricanes form off of the east coast of Africa. SInce surface temperatures affect their formation, haven't there been studies that try to see of there's a relationship between the two. Are surface temps changing? Also, studies of similar areas in the Pacific for typhoons?
Ray, what the variability and low confidence tells me is that there are many factors affecting climate. I think focusing on one - CO2 - is a mistake. It may tern out to be more coincidental that tempos are rising at the same time CO2 levels are increasing.
What's also interesting is that more CO2, more precipitation, and more heat generally increases the amount of land that vegetation, man and other creatures could use to expand their populations. That's the main indicator of successful species. While higher levels of sea water will cause long-term problems for coastal areas, countries will have to just spend more for ameliorating those areas as they have in the past. We may be forced to move out from those areas, something that has very often happened in history due to environmental changes.
While higher levels of sea water will cause long-term problems for coastal areas, countries will have to just spend more for ameliorating those areas as they have in the past. We may be forced to move out from those areas, something that has very often happened in history due to environmental changes.
A veterinary clinic in southern Ontario is sounding the alarm after discovering a rare tick known to cause a meat allergy in humans.
Alan,
this alert is for you. The warm weather is causing the Lone Star ticks to travel north, and this tick is causing a meat allergy in humans.
So, the meat eaters will have two choices - either stop the global warming or switch to vegan diet.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/tick-that-makes-people-allergic-to-red-meat-spotted-in-ontario-1.4486154?fbclid=IwAR2A_AOsja9JiDx1IwrgW2ApGy4_BWsEPGjUS3zDBzz7amBz4BmeM659LrM
OK. You've convinced me. We have to stop CO2 immediately!!!!
So, you're anti-wildlife as well .., why not give those ticks a chance.I really hate them. My dog almost died from Lyme disease or some other tick borne illness. I got bit by a Lyme carrying tick. Took antibiotics to kill the disease before it really got started. There are diseases now they have no cure for. Where I live now in New Jersey and before in New York, it's really the worst. I've stop hiking and won;t go deep into the woods to shoot picture. I won;t go at all if I'm wearing regular clothes, which reminds me I need to buy some Permethrin clothes.
I really hate them. My dog almost died from Lyme disease or some other tick borne illness. I got bit by a Lyme carrying tick. Took antibiotics to kill the disease before it really got started. There are diseases now they have no cure for. Where I live now in New Jersey and before in New York, it's really the worst. I've stop hiking and won;t go deep into the woods to shoot picture. I won;t go at all if I'm wearing regular clothes, which reminds me I need to buy some Permethrin clothes.
Lyme disease has hit Europe. (Revised) Don;t play games with these things, Bart. They're killers and maimers and are even spreading to back yards and front lawns.
It looks very serious in The Netherlands. Check the map at the bottom.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30514310 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30514310)
Thanks for the tip about Permethrin, Alan. The problem is that the ticks can be now anywhere, even in backyards or falling down from the trees lining the sidewalks.
So far, I was lucky not see any ticks around my house (but the Japanese beetles were very numerous this summer). I don't want to get into the protective clothing when just mowing the lawn, watering the garden, or picking up parsley for my soup. Maybe we should build some kind of wall on our southern border to prevent them from coming.
The attack on Saudi oil fields and the reduction in oil has shown how important fracking is especially to the US. Will it gain more acceptance. Also, the decrease in the availability of oil and the raising of oil and natural gas prices will have an affect on the thinking about how to move forward regarding climate change. It might remind people of the importance of fossil fuels. Others may find that it will encourage getting off fossil fuels that much sooner, climate change or not. Others may only be concerned about the possibility of a wide war. What affect to you think?
Ford Motor Company will invest $11.5 billion electrifying its F150 pickup trucks by 2022, including adding 16 fully electric models, all of which will be profitable. GM will be developing electric Silverado Pickup trucks. They'll be competing with Tesla. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV , has no current plans for an all-electric Ram, while Toyota Motor Corp is betting more heavily on a hybrid Tundra pickup. Paris Compact? What's that?
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-electric-pickups-focus/ford-gm-rev-up-electric-pickup-trucks-to-head-off-tesla-idUSKCN1VY0YE
Alan,
In the article you linked, there's no mention of the cost of these electric vehicles being developed. Why would anyone, except the rich for whom money is not a concern, pay triple the price for an electric vehicle of the same size and comfort as the petrol or diesel equivalent?
If the price becomes just 50% more, and the reduced cost of maintenance and energy required to recharge the batteries, including possible replacement the batteries over the life of the vehicle, compared with the alternative cost of petrol for the same mileage, offsets that initial additional cost, then buying the electric vehicle would make economic sense.
... in Berlin a heavy Porsche SUV drove on a sidewalk in downtown area killing four pedestrians...
Les, you sound like the New York Times: “Airplanes took aim at the World Trade Center.”
... miss the sense of that cryptic one!...
Similar to a Muslim congresswoman Ilhan Omar describing (earlier) 9/11 as "some people did something."
This week, leading Republicans and their allies in the media have been using an out-of-context quote from a recent speech by Rep. Ilham Omar (D-MN) to paint her as an anti-American radical indifferent to those killed during the 9/11 attacks.
... when only "some people did something"....
And how is that out of context, Bart? Because Vox says so? Put your critical-thinking-hat on, for crying out loud!
Seriously, Bart... "when only"!?
9/11 was "only some people did something"!? How is that changing the context? On which planet that can be interpreted as "out of context"?
Frans, one just has to listen to (or read) the actual speech, and look at the venue / situation where it was given. Have you?
It's about a speech that Omar had given at a Council on American–Islamic Relations (CAIR) meeting. In the speech Omar said, "CAIR was founded after 9/11 because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us [Muslims in the U.S.] were starting to lose access to our civil liberties." (CAIR was founded in 1994, but many new members joined after the 9/11 attacks in 2001.)
Fantastic, Bart!
And now does that change anything? What was "some people did something" referring to if not 9/11?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWFnkNX9m2E
https://www.newsweek.com/ilhan-omar-9-11-controversy-some-people-did-something-defense-1459327
Nah, Bart, I asked you.
Les, you sound like the New York Times: “Airplanes took aim at the World Trade Center.”You are right, Slobodan, the car in question wasn't engaged in autonomous driving mode. By the way, at least a dozen publications reported it that way and I just copied it. Maybe because the police didn't release initially the details about the driver and the actual cause, and later there were unconfirmed reports on Monday that the 42 year old driver may have suffered an epileptic fit which caused him to lose control, so technically it was the car which continued driving and caused the carnage.
Based on the Audi Q5 platform, the Macan is available as the S and Turbo, with twin-turbo V6s, standard active all-wheel drive and the Porsche PDK double-clutch transmission. The S is powered by a 340-horsepower 3.0-litre engine, accelerating to 100 km/h in 5.4 seconds (5.2 seconds with the Sport Chrono package). The larger 3.6-litre V6 engine in the Turbo pumps out a formidable 400 horsepower and accelerates the SUV to 100 km/h in 4.8 seconds (4.6 seconds with Sport Chrono). The standard equipment list is extensive and includes a multi-function sport steering wheel with paddle shifters, 19-inch wheels, a high-performance audio system and an electrically operated tailgate.Just the right cruiser for the city streets.
The subject was Islamophobia. The venue was CAIR, which saw a growing number of members after 9/11. And your Islamophobic slurs are getting tiring.
Please quote where I used a slur in this thread.
Slur: "an insinuation or allegation about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation"
Too much work to quote all the threads where you slur Muslims. This thread is yet another one where you use out of context fake news about a Muslim, to slur a group of people based on, in this case, their religion.
You got to be kidding!? Both in terms of “slur” and “fake news.”
CLAIM: Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota said “My people did something,” in reference to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
AP’S ASSESSMENT: False.
You got to be kidding!? Both in terms of “slur” and “fake news.”
Image distorts Rep. Omar’s 9/11 remarks
https://www.apnews.com/afs:Content:7354840002
False, fake news.
CLAIM: Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota said “My people did something,” in reference to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. An image circulating on Facebook that shows the burning World Trade Center’s twin towers with photos of Omar laughing, wrongly asserts that the Democratic congresswoman said, “My people did something.”
THE FACTS: Omar, the first Muslim refugee elected to Congress, did not say “my people did something” in reference to the terrorist attacks.
If ever there was a straw man, this is it (note the bold, where the actual thing was changed or refers to a different image than the one I posted from the NY Post):
The image you posted was also a fake representation of what was said and the partial quote was taken out of context.
Again, please provide the context in which the quote would have a different meaning.
The image you posted was also a fake representation of what was said and the partial quote was taken out of context.It's interesting that when Trump says something, you and most of the left media always look for the worst interpretation of what he said. But in this case, you support the most generous interpretation. It would be nice if you gave our President the same courtesy.
... BTW, care to explain why the reference to Ilhan Omar was brought into this thread?
Dear me! Some of you people do have a tendency to so easily get off topic, don't you?. ;D :(
Blame it on Les, he started it ;)
Les seemed to blame a car* for pedestrians' death (sorry, Les, I know you didn't mean it that way).
Which, in turn, reminded me of the similar attempt just a few days ago by the NYT to blame airplanes for 9/11. Which is done in the same spirit as Omar's quote - to minimize, trivialize, obfuscate, and obscure the real perpetrators behind 9/11: not cars, not planes, not "some people," but radical Islamists.
* SUV, the link to the Extreme weather thread
That's what makes these discussions so irresistible and valuable.
[...]
In other words, build up as much national hatred and misunderstanding about the other "side" as you can stoke in order to divert from the facts of the case, and cover it in multiple folds of a cloak of confusion until the public screams out for it all to stop! Then, when the public's on its spiritual knees, bully through your original intent. Democracy at its best, no doubt.
And until people are educated enough to think for themselves, it will ever be so.
Everything, it seems, is connected with everything else.
Any comments on my previous post, Bart?
If you insist, the analogy doesn't make sense, on several fronts.The American Muslim community is not being punished nor are their civil liberties being diminished in the USA. Of course there are bigoted people who have done things to them and other minorities as well. But these criminals are prosecuted to the full extents of our laws. I'd compare Muslim freedoms and rights here any day to the way Muslims are being treated in European countries where they can;t even wear their hijab in many places. Most Muslims are not treated as full citizens of the countries they live in Europe and are marginalized.
Ilhan Omar had given a speech in March 2019 at a banquet hosted by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in which she talked about the rise of Islamophobia and the erosion of the Muslim community’s civil liberties after 9/11, stating that the community as a whole was being punished for the actions of a few.
I have trouble seeing the analogies with the start of WWII, where our neighbor country invaded our country on May 10th, 1940, and tried to break the resistance against that invasion by flattening the center of a major city on May 14th to achieve a general capitulation.
...
I also fail to see the connection to Extreme Weather, unless one tries to make a misplaced cynical joke about it raining bombs.
If you insist, the analogy doesn't make sense, on several fronts.
Ilhan Omar had given a speech in March 2019 at a banquet hosted by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in which she talked about the rise of Islamophobia and the erosion of the Muslim community’s civil liberties after 9/11, stating that the community as a whole was being punished for the actions of a few.
I have trouble seeing the analogies with the start of WWII, where our neighbor country invaded our country on May 10th, 1940, and tried to break the resistance against that invasion by flattening the center of a major city on May 14th to achieve a general capitulation.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/Rotterdam%2C_Laurenskerk%2C_na_bombardement_van_mei_1940.jpg/952px-Rotterdam%2C_Laurenskerk%2C_na_bombardement_van_mei_1940.jpg)
I also fail to see the connection to Extreme Weather, unless one tries to make a misplaced cynical joke about it raining bombs.
You don't understand the analogy between "some people did something" and "some airplanes did something"? Come on now, get a grip.
It's all a lot of hot air.Not only that, the extremes can range now from super hot to super cold, super wet and super windy.
I just found Bart's favorite Mauna Loa Hawaii CO2 chart in an article about CO2.
https://www.inverse.com/article/59351-earth-atmosphere-carbon-dioxide-global-warming
What I'm curious though is something that hit me while reading it and what casues the earth to get warmer. (CO2, methane, etc. says the article)>
But how about something else. I live in mid-New Jersey. 40 years ago it was practically all farm land. Today, while there are still lots of ground and tree, there has been a lot of building going on. Sidewalks, homes, asphalts, etc. These things heat up from the sun a lot more than grass and trees. Have the scientists calculated just how much the earth is warming up due to increasing population changing the landscape? If so, what percentage do they claim? (Ray?)
I just found Bart's favorite Mauna Loa Hawaii CO2 chart in an article about CO2.
https://www.inverse.com/article/59351-earth-atmosphere-carbon-dioxide-global-warming
What I'm curious though is something that hit me while reading it and what casues the earth to get warmer. (CO2, methane, etc. says the article)>
But how about something else. I live in mid-New Jersey. 40 years ago it was practically all farm land. Today, while there are still lots of ground and tree, there has been a lot of building going on. Sidewalks, homes, asphalts, etc. These things heat up from the sun a lot more than grass and trees. Have the scientists calculated just how much the earth is warming up due to increasing population changing the landscape? If so, what percentage do they claim? (Ray?)
Ray, let me ask a loaded question. If they can't calculate how much asphalt and other changes to land use effects an increase in temperature, how come they blame CO2 and fossil fuels entirely?
Ray, let me ask a loaded question. If they can't calculate how much asphalt and other changes to land use effects an increase in temperature, how come they blame CO2 and fossil fuels entirely?
[...]
3. Natural forcings due to changes in the activity of the sun, volcanic eruptions, changing ocean cycles, changes in the Earth's orbit or tilt, changes in the amount of cosmic rays from outer space reaching the Earth, and no doubt many more natural influences which are not understood.
I would suggest that Bart's final sentence in his post, "Greenhouse gasses prevent all the heat from escaping", is simply not true.
Ray, let me ask a loaded question. If they can't calculate how much asphalt and other changes to land use effects an increase in temperature, how come they blame CO2 and fossil fuels entirely?
Solar activity, besides the approx. 11-year sunspot cycles, is rather stable over multiple decades and centuries, temperatures are not and they are rising faster than ever before. Earth's orbit and tilt are also pretty stable. It takes many centuries to create a measurable change. So those are not the cause.
I agree, 'all' the heat is a bit much. However, without the buffering and distribution by oceans and the thin layer of atmosphere, night temperatures would drop towards -173 Celsius (-459.67 Fahrenheit). The buffering/trapping/redistribution effect is pretty significant.
One can measure it. The Greenhouse Gas (GHG) properties of e.g. Methane, CO2, and water-vapor are known. The concentration of those elements in the atmosphere can be measured, and hence the effect on the energy transfer is pretty well known.
...Ray, So if there are many gases and water vapor affecting a rise in earth's temperature, what percent is attributable to CO2 and to each of the others? Is the rise claimed by science of let's say 2 degrees only due to CO2 or a combination of all the influences?
How many times have you seen a round chart which appears to show the percentages of all the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but completely excludes the main greenhouse gas, which is water vapor? Ridiculous! ;D
Ray, So if there are many gases and water vapor affecting a rise in earth's temperature, what percent is attributable to CO2 and to each of the others? Is the rise claimed by science of let's say 2 degrees only due to CO2 or a combination of all the influences?
Ray, to get back to my question, how much of the temperature rise is attributable to CO2?
The recent hot weather, over 93 degrees, here in New Jersey cause my bush outside to grow new flowers after the season was over. Compare the old colored out ones with the newly grown white ones. Isn't warm weather great?
A moderate degree of warming, plus a moderate degree of increased rainfall, plus a moderate degree of increased CO2 levels, should, on average, be very good for the environment.
The claimed average increase in global temperature, of 0.8 to 1 degree Centigrade since the end of the Little Ice Age, about 170 years ago, seems very moderate to me. ;)
Warmer and wetter are better.
That's what I've been telling my lady friends.
Over the past 25 years the rate of increase in sea surface temperature in all European seas has been about 10 times faster than the average rate of increase during the past century. In five European seas the warming occurs even more rapidly. In the North and Baltic Seas temperature rose five to six times faster than the global average over the past 25 years, and three times faster in the Black and Mediterranean Seas.
According to a study presented by the Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) in Barcelona on Thursday, temperatures in the Mediterranean region have so far risen by 1.5 degrees compared to the pre-industrial era. The global temperature increase averaged 1.1 degrees over the same period. More than 600 scientists from 35 countries have analyzed data on the climate in the Mediterranean for the study. The project is under the umbrella of the UfM and the United Nations Environment Program UNEP. The rise in temperature is currently advancing there 20 percent faster than the global average.
https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/coast_sea/sea-surface-temperature/rising-temp
Les,
You should know by now that global warming is not uniform. Some areas are warming greater than average, and other areas are warming less than average. Some areas are actually cooling. Check out the following article. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140504133207.htm
"New research by a team of Florida State University scientists shows the first detailed look at global land surface warming trends over the last 100 years, illustrating precisely when and where different areas of the world started to warm up or cool down.
For example, from about 1910 to 1980, while the rest of the world was warming up, some areas south of the equator -- near the Andes -- were actually cooling down, and then had no change at all until the mid 1990s. Other areas near and south of the equator didn't see significant changes comparable to the rest of the world at all."
Yes, Ray, I know that the global warming is not uniform. That's why it is even more alarming. Some areas may warm up just by one degree, whereas others by 2-3 degrees, or even more. And that would be noticeable and accompanied by serious consequences, such as changed air streams, droughts, fires, insect plaques, invasive plants explosions, and violent storms.
The problems is, people tend to be fixed in their ways and are unwilling to adapt to changing circumstances.
I could adapt easily to warmer winters, but would have problems with stronger and more frequent summer heat waves.
Unfortunately changing circumstances may suggest that people move to different countries to take advantage of new cultivation opportunities.Climate change and shifting weather patterns have destroyed civilizations in the past causing people to move. Of course, these were natural. We may be faced with serious problems in some areas that we'll have to deal with. But droughts and other natural catastrophes have also always been with us. Spitting into the wind has always been a problem.
Indeed. And since that growing requirement for additional cooling can practically *) only be achieved by using more electricity, the need will also increase. It should ideally be generated with renewable resources. Heating has multiple possible sources from which it can be generated, including the polluting burning of fossil fuel.Warmer winters will decrease the amount of fossil fuel use during the cold season. Also, most people heat while most people don;t air condition. So the net benefit should be less burning of fossil fuel as temperatures go up. I haven;t googles this so it could be different. Would someone want to prove me wrong, or right?
*) There are other possibilities to achieve cooling ...
Here's a fascinating article which provides links to the actual research papers which can be viewed or downloaded free. I'm sure Bart will be very pleased. ;)
The over all view in these papers is that increased temperatures tend to reduce the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, and that an average cooling of the climate is likely to be more dangerous for mankind.
https://principia-scientific.org/25-new-papers-prove-remarkably-stable-modern-climate/
With the warming climate, we should expect a change in weather-related disasters. Fewer cold snaps and stronger heat waves are the obvious issues. But we should also see more intense storms, as a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor, while droughts may intensify in areas where rain was already sparse as the heat bakes water out of the soil.
All that suggests the costs of weather disasters will be different—but not necessarily better or worse. Researchers who have tried to study the topic have come up with very mixed results: some show an upward trend in the cost of natural disasters, while others fiercely dispute these analyses. Now, a new study suggests a possible reason for this: while the average damage caused by disasters is staying relatively stable, the most extreme events are increasing rapidly. But in a small bit of consolation, the human costs may be dropping.
Warmer winters will decrease the amount of fossil fuel use during the cold season. Also, most people heat while most people don;t air condition. So the net benefit should be less burning of fossil fuel as temperatures go up.
Depends on how you generate power for the airco's ...Regardless, very few people air condition in the world in comparison to those who need to heat. So warmer winters will reduce the amount of energy required which is still 95%+ by fossil fuels.
Many parts of the eastern US from Pennsylvania down to Georgia are in a drought situation. https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/10/11/drought-expands-intensifies-over-dc-area/ (https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/10/11/drought-expands-intensifies-over-dc-area/) has some good maps of the situation. In our own area of Maryland we have had virtually no rain at all since the first week of September. The state of Virginia is officially under a drought watch and controls on water use are likely if there is no rain in the near future.As global warming adherents keep reminding us, local weather patterns have nothing to do with climate change. Last year we had the wettest weather in recorded history here in New Jersey which is a stone's throw away from Virginia and Maryland. It's still raining a lot this year here. (Edit add: and Pennsylvania borders New Jersey.)
From personal observation, I can guarantee that this is not fake news.
Too bad, the website you like to link to is known to be biased (see attached), so it is hard to judge how representative these papers are. That is, 25 cherry-picked papers may be kind of insignificant amongst hundreds of independent papers that suggest different or opposing conclusions. That makes your post more relevant for the thread on the over-representation of biased media than this thread.
As global warming adherents keep reminding us, local weather patterns have nothing to do with climate change.
Last year we had the wettest weather in recorded history here in New Jersey which is a stone's throw away from Virginia and Maryland. It's still raining a lot this year here. (Edit add: and Pennsylvania borders New Jersey.)
Weather patterns are changing due to the warming. There are more weather extremes, locally.
Like I said, population is the cause of too much pollution and CO2. So now it's had to happen. People calling for no children. It's sick out there and getting sicker.
https://www.vox.com/2019/3/11/18256166/climate-change-having-kids
Continuing the current trend in population increase is sure not a solution for future generation.These nihilists are teaching children not to have children. Decades ago they made the same argument there wouldn't be enough food if the population increased. Well they were wrong then too.
These nihilists are teaching children not to have children. Decades ago they made the same argument there wouldn't be enough food if the population increased. Well they were wrong then too.
The annual UN report found that climate variability affecting rainfall patterns and agricultural seasons, and climate extremes such as droughts and floods, are among the key drivers behind the rise in hunger, together with conflict and economic slowdowns.
Conservation NGOs have expressed their anger with the EU, as Baltic Sea fishing quotas were set late on Oct. 14 at levels above the EU's own legal requirements for sustainable fishing levels in 2020. In a press release, the Danish government declared the quotas had "struck a good balance" between the development of fish stocks, and the preservation of the fishing industry.
Negotiations took place between EU member states and the European Commission (EC) at the Luxembourg Council of Ministers. The EC had proposed to reduce cod quotas in the western Baltic by 68% and herring quotas by 71%. Following yesterday's meeting, Denmark said its quotas would fall by 60% and 65% respectively.
In lakes all over the world, algal blooms are getting more severe. Researchers analysed growth patterns of algal blooms in 71 large lakes across 33 countries and six continents.
Studies indicate that just in the United States, freshwater blooms result in the loss of $4 billion each year.
Were they? You're just lucky that you are not one of the 821 million people suffering from hunger.
Global hunger continues to rise, new UN report says
821 million people now hungry and over 150 million children stunted, putting hunger eradication goal at risk
https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/11-09-2018-global-hunger-continues-to-rise---new-un-report-says
Overfishing because of the overpopulation demands:What do you suggest we do with the Danish people? Have them eat cake? :)
https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2019/10/15/ngos-angry-as-eu-sets-baltic-quotas-above-sustainable-levels/
What do you suggest we do with the Danish people? Have them eat cake? :)
Yum. I love a nice Danish pastry. Cheeze or blueberry. Much better than sardines.
Yes, and that kind of food also lowers the pension payouts. Wholeheartedly endorsed by the government.That's the answer. Government should issue coupons for free, delicious Danish pastries. With people dying earlier, the decreasing population will need less fossil fuel lowering CO2 in the air and saving the planet.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/14/rise-renewables-oil-firms-decades-earlier-thinkBut Peter, since Germany now has 40% renewables, their electricity costs have skyrocketed costing 2 1/2 times what the average American pays . And my town just negotiated an electricity contract with a new supplier for two years that will lower my costs another $150 over the 24 months.
Fossil fuels are a sunset industry. Renewables are cheaper now and will be even cheaper in the future.
The video (scroll down) is damning. The FFI boys knew what they were doing long ago, but they persisted. Because greed.
Extrapolating the extremes - the humanity started when they were few people and many resources, and it will end up with many people and few resources.
Assuming anything else is just being conned into one huge pyramid scheme.
Forty years ago, I had a family member who taught College Geology. He told me then that we were running out of oil. Since he said that, we made amazing strides in developing new fossil fuel resources including fracking and drilling in areas we couldn;t back then. If the Arctic losses its ice, we'll have more areas to drill. So I don;t think we'll run out of oil anytime soon. Or natural gas. Let's hope that technology will advance and someone will develop a more efficient solar cell, let's say ten or 100x what we have currently. Now, imagine what we could do then?
So I don't think we'll run out of oil anytime soon.
Were they? You're just lucky that you are not one of the 821 million people suffering from hunger.
Global hunger continues to rise, new UN report says
821 million people now hungry and over 150 million children stunted, putting hunger eradication goal at risk
https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/11-09-2018-global-hunger-continues-to-rise---new-un-report-says
"These numbers are frightening," says Roland Kupka of Unicef. "It's not just important that children do not go hungry, they also need to get the right food to grow without restrictions." Unicef's nutrition expert explains in an interview how hunger and nutrient deficiencies affect children. And why 40 million children have become overweight and thus become the new risk group.
That's true. My point is, it would not be wise to wait until a scarcity of fossil fuels becomes undeniable after significant increased usage and dependency on fossil fuels becomes entrenched, as the world economy develops. The development of solar technology, effective battery storage and electric vehicles, is a long and expensive process.
Many authorities claim that the generation of electricity from solar panels is now as efficient, in terms of cost, as electricity from fossil fuels, and that's encouraging. But such claims ignore the reliability factor. When the cost of battery storage is taken into consideration, to create reliability equal to the reliability of fossil fuels, the cost of solar energy is still more expensive.
While the fact that wind and solar don’t produce energy around the clock is certainly a major disadvantage, I find that the problems associated with the intermittent nature of many renewables are often exaggerated, and rarely discussed from a practical perspective.
Unfortunately in many regions, obesity and wrong type of food are today a greater health risk than hunger.
...
No, nothing is being ignored. The need for non-intermittent power generation remains, but this type of power generation will reduce the need for it. So there will be a net reduction of CO2-emissions.While it's true that the need for fossil fuel would be reduced with green energy, you still need fossil fuel running plants as backup as long as the earth stays dark at night. So you have the attendant costs of providing for these plants. This may account for why Germany has not been able to reduce its electricity costs despite a 40% level of renewable electricity production.
Renewable Energy Intermittency Explained: Challenges, Solutions, and Opportunities
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/renewable-energy-intermittency-explained-challenges-solutions-and-opportunities/ (https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/renewable-energy-intermittency-explained-challenges-solutions-and-opportunities/)
No, nothing is being ignored. The need for non-intermittent power generation remains, but this type of power generation will reduce the need for it. So there will be a net reduction of CO2-emissions.
...They pay a price for being the first to make this changeover, but will have lower pollution costs that are not accounted for.
Countries such as Germany and Portugal that produce the highest percentage of their power requirements from renewable sources, have the highest electricity prices in the world.
...
You missed my point, Bart. It is the claims that solar and wind power is no more expensive, and even cheaper than energy from fossil fuels, that ignores, or does not take into full consideration, the cost of ensuring reliability of supply with back-up fossil power plants and/or battery storage.
Of course there are solutions to the intermittency of supply from solar and wind, and those solutions are not being ignored, but electricity from back-up fossil power plants which are used only part of the time, is more expensive than electricity from the same plants that are productive most of the time.
Countries such as Germany and Portugal that produce the highest percentage of their power requirements from renewable sources, have the highest electricity prices in the world.
Electric driving is taking af, now 1 % of all cars are electric. The Tesla 3 being the most wanted lease car.
The cost of burning fossil fuel will be paid by the next generations, so it is only artificially low now.
Ray, what's fascinating is that here you and I are, 12000 miles apart, on different sides of the world, and we post statements generally aligned to be read by the entire rest of the world just 40 seconds apart. That's amazing! Well, it amazes me. Maybe because I'm old, Youngsters can't imagine just how amazing this is. Someday we'll be able to send photos around the world in a jiffy. :)
I was a terrible eater when I was a kid, a problem long since corrected. My mother would yell at me at the table as the food lay dormant, "Alan, finish your food. There are starving children in China." What would mothers tell their children today? "No seconds. Look at all those obese children in Africa."
Ray makes a good point about batteries. His Australia paid millions to Tesla to provide storage for green energy production. But those millions were a drop in the ocean. There's no way we'll have batteries to support the whole world's needs. A breakout technology has to be developed. Hopefully that will happen.
The amount of energy used by cars and trucks today, in the form of diesel and gasoline, is roughly equivalent to the output of our electrical generating capacity. So if we went to 100% electric cars, we'd have to (roughly) double our generating capacity, which means dozens of new power plants. Does anybody think that dozens of new generating plants are going to be built in this age of NIMBY? I'm really curious about how this will work (and as an aside, I have a car that runs partially on plug-in electricity. I only get about 27 miles on the battery, before the gasoline engine kicks on, but I live in a small city, Santa Fe, NM, and can often run all my daily errands purely on electric power. Recharging from 220 outlet takes about two hours.)John, Nice to get your input. Santa Fe is a great town. My wife and I spent three days there in the Spring last year as part of our trip through the southwest's national parks in Utah and Arizona. Here are some of the pictures I took. https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157694819890421 (https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/albums/72157694819890421) My wife wanted to vist "artsy" Santa Fe and we really enjoyed the SW cutlture and art there. We went to the Georgia O'Keeffe Museum with all her paintings and photos. We also saw some amazing native American Indian art.
Ray, IMHO there is of course a lot of pollution, but it's slowly being brought under control, and would be greatly reduced if there were brutally harsh laws concerning dumping in the oceans. But CO2 and other aerosols that are creating global warming are literally an existential problem, as pollution no longer is. You can clean up pollutants, but you can't clean up heat. Further, IMHO, I think the world needs to quickly go to electric vehicles powered by advanced nuclear energy plants. Doing that would solve many of our problems, but it might already be too late.
I agree about NIMBY. When I lived in NY, our governor there closed down the nuclear generating electric plant on Long Island for political reasons. All that non-polluting with no CO2 either. Then the same governor went ahead and is spending $3.2 billion dollars to install offshore wind generators off Long Island for about a million homes ($3200 a home), not including cost overruns which always happen with the government. Coincidentally, he has to build separate new fossil fuel plants to backup the wind generators when the wind stops blowing. All at additional cost. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. We all would have been better off if he left the nuclear plants.
$3200 a home, divided by 25 years operations = $128/year, add some maintenance and sell 'free fuel'. Sounds like a plan.Bart, you left out key cost components. First: Cost overruns. Offshore wind is the most expensive form of renewable energy. The estimates are just that. Government here never gets that right. It always goes over budget.
How much CO2 emission reduction will have been avoided?
How long had the Long Island Nuclear plant left of useful life?
What would it have cost to build a new facility?
Now I see why Germany's electric costs have gone up with free renewable energy. It's just so much more expensive.
In all fairness to Alan's analysis, cost of electricity in Germany went in the last decade through the roof. And it is expected to rise again.I believe Germany is generally colder than America, so the US, especially the southern half of the US uses more A/C which is very expensive because of the high electrical requirements. We tend to build a lot with wood but all newer homes are insulated well. The products just didn't exist a few decades ago. Mine house is great. I can't believe how efficient it is. 6" insulation in all exterior walls and attic ceiling and double pane windows help enormously. I also switched 90% of my lighting to LED's. We heat and cook with natural gas, not smelly, more expensive oil. I use time as well as temperature controlled thermostats for more efficiency and cycle outside light based on dawn and dusk lighting requirements. I'd raise the thermostat in the summer to save even more energy but wife complains it's too hot. :)
OTOH, the German homes are much better insulated than the houses on this continent, so the real heating and cooling costs might be comparable to ours. Actually, most German homes don't have air-conditioning, but the thick walls help to keep the summer temperatures quite tolerable.
But Peter, since Germany now has 40% renewables, their electricity costs have skyrocketed costing 2 1/2 times what the average American pays . And my town just negotiated an electricity contract with a new supplier for two years that will lower my costs another $150 over the 24 months.
The children of the current generation are already bearing the consequences of the move towards renewables. They're suffering anxiety and stress because of the unfounded alarm about CO2 emissions, and many are wondering if they should refrain from having children because the future is so bleak.
Have you considered that cost?
The children of the current generation are already bearing the consequences of the move towards renewables. They're suffering anxiety and stress because of the unfounded alarm about CO2 emissions, and many are wondering if they should refrain from having children because the future is so bleak.
Have you considered that cost?
Alan, that's about the tenth time you've brought up the fact that Germany pays more for electricity than you do. We get it. However, there are factors at play that you don't mention. For example, undoubtedly some significant share of your apparently inexpensive NJ power comes from up north: from the socialist, government-ruled, liberty-free societies of Labrador and Quebec, where they generate power efficiently, renewably and cheaply from falling water. You're welcome.
Besides, low prices aren't necessarily a good thing; just ask any small town what happens when a Walmart or Dollar General moves in.
Americans also pay among the lowest prices in the western world for gasoline and diesel, but many American highways (and bridges) are in atrocious shape. I've experienced them first hand. This fact is according to Americans, not just me. Try driving on European highways, compared to, say those in Pennsylvania. Or NYC. Or NM. Or, perish the thought, New Jersey. :) Potholes anyone? Poor infrastructure maintenance is irresponsible, third world stuff.
Taxes have benefits. Drive I-5 the length of relatively high-tax Oregon and be amazed at just how pleasurable smooth asphalt and clearly painted highway markings can be.
In any case, getting back to low prices, fossil fuels (especially and immediately, coal) are doomed. They're too expensive. Renewables are not only better for everyone and everything, they're rapidly becoming cheaper.
Imagine, if you will, a solar powered steel mill. Pueblo, CO will have one soon. Not because it's greener or more politically correct, because it's cheaper.
https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/360/xcel-energy-plans-to-close-2-of-its-coal-fired-plants-in-pueblo-to-make-way-for-a-greener-future (https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/360/xcel-energy-plans-to-close-2-of-its-coal-fired-plants-in-pueblo-to-make-way-for-a-greener-future)
This seems like a positive side benefit. What's your point?So you think it's a good idea to convert happy children who would ordinarily look forward to a happy, productive future with families into children that look and act like that Greta what's her name who at 16 years of age sees no future or reason for living blaming her misery on climate change predictions?
As an aside, the article didn't explain how the renewable energy will be produced on the 65 days when there's no sun or at night. It seems that they'll need fossil fuel backup. There's nothing in the article that explains what that will cost and where it's coming from. Maybe from Labrador and Quebec, Canada? :)
I made a lot of points in my post and you chose to ignore nearly all of them. Your only response to any of it indicates that you obviously didn't even read the article. It explains precisely how they'll solve that problem.Peter, I was going to answer each of them. But you made so many diverse points, I just didn't have the time. Let me just say I disagree with them all. :)
And, yes, it could well be at least partly coming from Labrador and Quebec. Electricity respects neither geographical nor temporal boundaries.
Peter, I was going to answer each of them. But you made so many diverse points, I just didn't have the time. Let me just say I disagree with them all. :)
As a New Yorker from "pothole city", I'm jealous of the velvet smooth interstates of Oregon. Do you realize how much money I could have saved on flats and balancing tires?
So, the money you (and everyone else) spent on tires (and shocks, too, probably) you could have spent on road (fuel) taxes. Then, they could fix all the potholes and EVERYONE would benefit, not just you.Thanks for the tax advice on potholes. I'll pass it on to the mayor.
Oh, wait. That's socialism. When everyone benefits. Sorry.
Glad to see you back Slobodan. I was getting lonely holding down the fort. :)Ray's been helping a lot. :)
"University dumps professor who found polar bears thriving despite climate change"
Just what I've been saying all along. The bears figured out what to do as it warms up in the north and/or have no problem in the first place.
That's not true. Studies have shown that changes in hunting policy made little difference. The polar bears are doing very well despite "global warming". They're adapting or it's just not making any difference in the first place.
Yes, amazing how they convinced people to stop hunting them for pleasure ...
... “Professor after professor has been hounded, silenced, censured or fired for speaking out against the approved man-made climate crisis narrative,” Mr. Morano said. “The message to any climate dissenters in academia is once again reinforced: Stay silent with your skepticism or risk endangering your career.”
That's not true. Studies have shown that changes in hunting policy made little difference.
"University dumps professor who found polar bears thriving despite climate change"
Just what I've been saying all along. The bears figured out what to do as it warms up in the north and/or have no problem in the first place. All a lot of fake news to drum up support for global warming alarmists.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/20/susan-crockford-fired-after-finding-polar-bears-th/ (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/oct/20/susan-crockford-fired-after-finding-polar-bears-th/)
decreasing ice could allow increased shipping through Arctic waterways, including the Northwest Passage. While this may mean economic benefits for Nunavut, it can also raise the risk of oil and chemical spills.
Glad to see you back Slobodan.
Yes, indeed: you have been missed. My blood pressure has been unusually low of late. (No offense meant to Alan; he has certainly been trying his best.)Well, it's my blood pressure that's gone up since Slobodan has been AWOL. OF course, Ray has been particularly helpful in this thread.
Proof?Here's the 72 page scientific study by this professor who's an expert on polar bears and has studied them for many years. I've copied the study's Executive Summary below.
Here's the 72 page scientific study by this professor who's an expert on polar bears and has studied them for many years.
You suggested that (several) studies would show that reduced hunting did not play much of a role.You just discounted her whole 72 page report where she argued there were no losses as expected due to global warming. Hunting had no influence on her study's conclusion.
The study you mentioned says e.g. " recovery from previous overhunting might still be ongoing" and "based on current conditions, as long as spring and early summer ice re-main abundant, it looks as though polar bears will continue to recover from the over-hunting of the early 20th century".
Here's the 72 page scientific study by this professor who's an expert on polar bears and has studied them for many years. I've copied the study's Executive Summary below.
What I discovered is that in Al Gore's followup to An Inconvenient Truth, polar bears were not mentioned at all. They were the main victim of global warming in the original release. It was already obvious, even to Gore, that the bears were not in danger. So they ignored this incovenient truth in their second presentation.
https://polarbearscience.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/crockford_state-of-the-polar-bear-2017_gwpf-report-29_feb-2018-final.pdf (https://polarbearscience.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/crockford_state-of-the-polar-bear-2017_gwpf-report-29_feb-2018-final.pdf)
Always a good laugh to check up on the source of Alan's information:Global warming scientists predicted a 67% decline in polar bear populations. 2 out of 3 would be dead. It didn't happen. The rest is just conversation.
https://www.desmog.co.uk/global-warming-policy-foundation (https://www.desmog.co.uk/global-warming-policy-foundation) - some information about who funded the publication - or some lack of information, as the funders don't want to 'fess up
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/climate/polar-bears-climate-deniers.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/climate/polar-bears-climate-deniers.html) - some background on the claims made (hint: they don't stack up)
Global warming scientists predicted a 67% decline in polar bear populations. 2 out of 3 would be dead.
Those members of the polar bear population who refuse to give up their old ways of eating seal from sea ice, assuming the ice shrinks, will die off. They won't have offspring that survives. The bears that adapt, that catch seal on islands and other land or find other land sources of different prey will survive. They will have the offspring that will repeat their parents methods and continue the species. Nothing new in all this. Exactly how things happen in Darwin's nature.
A collaborative project between Indigenous Alaskan hunters in villages across the Bering, Beaufort, and Chukchi Seas, and scientists with the state’s Department of Fish and Game found that the pregnancy rate in bearded seals is on the rise. What’s more, the animals also seem to be maturing at a younger age. In the 1960s, bearded seals were reaching sexual maturity at around four years old. Now, they’re hitting puberty at age two and a half.
Not true. So the rest of your post is moot.He didn't read the articles you linked to so of course he got it wrong.
More likely, the polar bear survival can be attributed to the increase of seal population.Maybe I should switch my diet to seal liver? Healthy eating; healthy heart. :)
https://www.hakaimagazine.com/news/bearded-seals-are-maturing-younger-and-having-more-pups/ (https://www.hakaimagazine.com/news/bearded-seals-are-maturing-younger-and-having-more-pups/)
BTW, the seal liver is considered an Arctic delicacy. You can boil or roast it, but the best way is to eat it raw. No wonder the bears are doing so well.
Regarding seal births, Darwin at work again. What disturbs me is that no matter how good the news is, every nature article still continues to press that changes in climate will destroy species. It's a knee jerk reaction. They can't give good news just as it is. They twist it into something negative. Man is bad. Man is destroying nature. They have to create a gray cloud around every silver lining.
Those members of the polar bear population who refuse to give up their old ways of eating seal from sea ice, assuming the ice shrinks, will die off. They won't have offspring that survives. The bears that adapt, that catch seal on islands and other land or find other land sources of different prey will survive. They will have the offspring that will repeat their parents methods and continue the species. Nothing new in all this. Exactly how things happen in Darwin's nature.
You see, politically it is more correct to let the polar bears eat the seals than to allow the Newfoundlanders kill them and sell the fur.
Those members of the Syrian population who refuse to give up their old ways of going to school and working in the fields will be blown to bits by Russian and Turkish bombs. Those that adapt and hide in cellars will survive. Their children will copy their parents behaviour and continue the species.To bring my analysis to the human species, climate change and environmental changes have always happened. It has forced whole populations of people to move on to other locations to find food and opportunity to survive. Crowding due to high birth rates due to good conditions also force people to move on. If the land is occupied by other, individuals have to move to find areas where they can claim a stake. Territorial species of all kinds do this. Also, people living in marginal areas who can't find economic opportunity move on to areas where they can get jobs. America was expanded and settled due to huge economic advantages by moving into areas that had little or no populations before. Battles with indigenous people of course were fought over those territories. All animal and plants species do this. It's the reason the whole world became occupied by humans. Nothing unusual. Standard Darwin type stuff.
Does that actually make sense to you ? Do you think this is how evolution actually works?
Standard Darwin type stuff.
Another climato-criminal busted - asthmatics:
Asthma carbon footprint 'as big as eating meat' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-50215011
;D
But the Cambridge University team told BMJ Open patients must check with a doctor before changing medication.
Some patients will not be able to switch and should not be made to feel guilty, they add.
Another climato-criminal busted - asthmatics:Relocation might work, too. It's much easier to breath in a subtropical place than in a subarctic region.
Asthma carbon footprint 'as big as eating meat' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-50215011
;D
... It's much easier to breath in a subtropical place than in a subarctic region.
Quote from: LesPalenik on October 29, 2019, 11:02:22 pmIn the winter months, breathing in Miami is definitely more pleasurable than in Fairbanks.
... It's much easier to breath in a subtropical place than in a subarctic region.
You sure about that?
In the winter months, breathing in Miami is definitely more pleasurable than in Fairbanks.
Then again, California banned plastic straws, so there is hope ;)
The Keystone pipeline system, an addition to which has been the subject of environmental protests for years, leaked about 383,000 gallons of crude oil in North Dakota, covering an estimated half-acre of wetland, state environmental regulators said.
The spill, which has been contained, occurred in a low-gradient drainage area near the small town of Edinburg in northeast North Dakota, less than 50 miles from the Canadian border, according to Karl Rockeman, the director of the state Department of Environmental Quality’s division of water quality.
“It is one of the larger spills in the state,” he said in an email on Thursday.
There is an interesting book out by Gilbert Gaul called Geography of Risk that documents the rise of coastal housing development in the US and its inherent weather-related risks, and how that risk has been managed. There is a 36 min podcast interview with the author here https://www.npr.org/2019/10/17/770812863/geography-of-risk-calculates-who-pays-when-a-storm-comes-to-shore (https://www.npr.org/2019/10/17/770812863/geography-of-risk-calculates-who-pays-when-a-storm-comes-to-shore). There are a lot of conflicting interests, real estate developers, insurance companies, federal, state and municipal governments, even the Army Corps of Engineers, and of course home-owners.
1 step forwards, 2 steps back ...:
A boat stuck on rocks above Niagara Falls for more than a century has been unmoored by high wind and heavy rains.
Thursday's harsh weather pushed the vessel away from its rocky perch and closer to the falls on the Canadian side, according to the Niagara Parks Commission.
It's the first time it's moved any appreciable distance for more than a century, according to CNN affiliate CBC.
The severe weather conditions this past week have caused the iron scow lodged a few hundred meters in the rapids above the Niagara Falls for over a century, to shift significantly from its position. Maybe it will stay in the new position or it will plunge down the falls.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/02/americas/niagara-falls-weather-iron-scow-trnd/index.html
That's funny. As time goes by, I find it harder to move.
Because it's rusty?Must be the weather.
... But first we need all people who care about climate change to understand that they’re part of the problem and the solution, just by wearing clothes.
The study, called the “World scientists’ warning of a climate emergency,” marks the first time a large group of scientists has formally come out in favor of labeling climate change an “emergency,” which the study notes is caused by many human trends that are together increasing greenhouse gas emissions. The report, published Tuesday in the journal Bioscience, was spearheaded by the ecologists Bill Ripple and Christopher Wolf of Oregon State University, along with William Moomaw, a Tufts University climate scientist, and researchers in Australia and South Africa.
The study clearly lays out the huge challenge of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. “Despite 40 years of global climate negotiations, with few exceptions, we have generally conducted business as usual and have largely failed to address this predicament,” the study states.
Les, their solution is population control, like the Chinese did. Talk about Fascism.
Average man’s sperm count has dropped steadily over the past 40 years. This fact should scare everyone, especially men. However, sperm health is the last thing on the minds of most men. How nutrition impacts sperm is even farther away from our collective consciousness.
A recent study states that average sperm counts have dropped by 59 percent over the past 38 years. With this drop in mind, it’s not surprising that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website states “in about 35 percent of couples with infertility, a male factor is identified along with a female factor." Falling sperm counts, combined with the trend of having children at later ages, means that some couples will face difficulties with fertility.
... Here are the main five foods lowering the male sperm count:
1. Processed meats
2. Trans fats
3. Soy products
4. Pesticides and bisphenol a (BPA) - from packaging, unfiltered water, non-stick cookware
5. High fat dairy products (including pizza)
... 11,000 scientists from around the world declared a ‘climate emergency’. Despite what the deniers say, all 11,000 scientists can't be wrong...
The list is not complete, Les.
6. feminism
7. progressivism
8. political correctness
9. MeToo
10. The Alphabet Soup
11K?! Meh!
How about 31+K?
Alemu Gonsamo, a research associate at the University of Toronto's geography department who studies phenology and climate change, but who was not involved with the study, says there are other consequences that scientists are trying to better understand.
For example, with earlier leafing and flowering comes a longer growing season. Trees take in carbon from the atmosphere. While having more carbon uptake may seem like a positive in a rapidly warming world, Gonsamo notes it will cause the soil to dry out. And because there will also be more decomposition, more carbon will be released. It's unknown what the long-term, large-scale effects will be.
These are impressive numbers, but we are mixing apples with oranges. 31K scientists on one issue and 11K attending a conference in Paris. No wonder the individuals who couldn't get to Paris are protesting. :PIf someone paid for my trip to Paris to attend a conference, I'd change my opinion and support global warming and the Paris Accord as well. After all, Paris is very nice in the Springtime.
Even if we could use those numbers for a comparison, just imagine how much science we could get done if we put those two groups together. We might need another group of scientists and some new studies to synthesize and summarize the information from both these camps.
In all seriousness there are quite a few changes happening around us, some beneficial and some less so, some detectable with each new season, and others hardly visible, but potentially quite adverse in the long run.
An interesting study with indisputable evidence has been conducted recently in Belgium. Examining footage of annual bicycle race showed that the trees along the bicycle race route are now flowering earlier than 30 years earlier.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/bike-race-footage-climate-change-1.4736912 (https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/bike-race-footage-climate-change-1.4736912)
... 11K attending a conference in Paris. No wonder the individuals who couldn't get to Paris are protesting. :P
If someone paid for my trip to Paris to attend a conference, I'd change my opinion and support global warming and the Paris Accord as well. After all, Paris is very nice in the Springtime.
Paris is overrated. According to Yogi Berra, nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded.That's the same reason photographers don't shoot at Yosemite any longer. Too many pictures have been taken of it.
If someone paid for my trip to Paris to attend a conference, I'd change my opinion and support global warming and the Paris Accord as well. After all, Paris is very nice in the Springtime.That would be a great 'deal'...
That would be a great 'deal'...Well, soon it will be Springtime in Paris in winter. We could go then too. :)
Paris is overrated. According to Yogi Berra, nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded.That was a joke, wasn't it? ;)
That was a joke, wasn't it? ;)A well known footaball player (soccer) said once:
That was a joke, wasn't it? ;)
Quote from: LesPalenik on November 05, 2019, 11:29:40 pm
Paris is overrated. According to Yogi Berra, nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded.
Are you referring to the first or second sentence?
Nobody goes there anymore, it's too crowded
That was a joke, wasn't it? ;)
I am not sure if your question itself is a joke (the winking smiley suggests that), but if serous, it is just one example of the paradoxical jokes Yogi Berra is famous for. My favorite is this one: “When you come to a fork in the road, take it.” Which brings to mind the Buridan’s ass, but I digress. 😊
When Yogi was asked if he wanted his pizza cut into 8 slices, he said "better make it six, I can't eat eight".That's a good one Peter. I'll have to pull that on the pizza store owner when I go there next time and order a whole pie.
Peter
That's a good one Peter. I'll have to pull that on the pizza store owner when I go there next time and order a whole pie.
I am not sure if your question itself is a joke (the winking smiley suggests that), but if serous, it is just one example of the paradoxical jokes Yogi Berra is famous for. My favorite is this one: “When you come to a fork in the road, take it.” Which brings to mind the Buridan’s ass, but I digress. 😊
Right at the beginning of the article: "Climate change is making winters colder despite rising temperatures and hotter summers." You got to love the radical climate alarmists!
Next week's Arctic blast will be so cold, forecasters expect it to break 170 records across US
https://www.freep.com/story/news/nation/2019/11/08/weather-arctic-blast-next-week-midwest-east-south-cold-temperatures/2518984001/
Get used to weather extremes, this is just the beginning.
Right at the beginning of the article: "Climate change is making winters colder despite rising temperatures and hotter summers." You got to love the radical climate alarmists!Up is down; down is up.
Sure! Isn't that true! We've never had such extreme weather events in the past.
Sure! Isn't that true! We've never had such extreme weather events in the past. Throughout all the past civilizations of mankind, the climate has always been benign, until the industrial revolution took place and we started emitting CO2. Right? ;D
PS: What do the numbers mean on the X and Y axis? Why did NASA leave off the descriptors?
The solution is simple: we shall wear no clothes, eat no meat, fly no planes, have no children, and the humanity will be saved!
The solution is simple: we shall wear no clothes, eat no meat, fly no planes, have no children, and the humanity will be saved!Or we could do something simpler, like cut back on fossil fuels and use renewables in their place.
Or we could do something simpler, like cut back on fossil fuels and use renewables in their place.
Just read the article I linked to, if you are really interested.You didn't answer my question. I asked a simple question what do the numbers mean on the x-axis and what do the numbers mean on the y-axis?
and this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heat_waves
You didn't answer my question. I asked a simple question what do the numbers mean on the x-axis and what do the numbers mean on the y-axis?
You posted a phony chart that has no meaning. It's your job to correct it not mine.
You didn't answer my question. I asked a simple question what do the numbers mean on the x-axis and what do the numbers mean on the y-axis?Don't be so lazy. Read the article and find out for yourself. If you are really interested. Which you're not.
You posted a phony chart that has no meaning. It's your job to correct it not mine.
Don't be so lazy. Read the article and find out for yourself. If you are really interested. Which you're not.So what do the chart numbers mean since you read the article? The issue here is that phony data is always being presented. No one explains what you're looking at. So why should people believe what you;re presenting if the chart is meaningless as posted? You're trying to convince me. It's your job not my job to go on a wild goose chase to track down information and read a science report.
Or we could do something simpler, like cut back on fossil fuels and use renewables in their place.
;D
Good luck with that.
Ray, were it that normal in the past, no vegetation-dependent wildlife would have survived because left unchecked by man, the fires would have spread everywhere there was vegetation to burn. Maybe some ants, snakes, lizards and other hole-entering creatures could have survived, but even then, you can cook by placing a chicken in a hole and lighting a fire above it. Your nationally symbolic creatures would have sizzled in their holes, barbecued on branches and charred in the meadows.
Sure, settlers probably brought their own dogs now and again, but that would have been much later in history. Camels yes, but I'm sure they didn't think to ship in spare kangaroos and koalas from somewhere, let along eucalyptus trees.
Global temperatures are rising at an unprecedented rate, and this time it's caused by human activity (burning of fossil fuel and landuse are the main contributors).No wonder you didn't want to explain what the chart numbers mean. You can't understand what they mean. The chart is meaningless. I read the explanation and I don;t understand a word it says. There's no relationship between the numbers in the chart and to anything in English anyone could understand. It's gobbledygook. These scientists should take a course on writing English. They should be made to give back their grant money.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/88/Shifting_Distribution_of_Summer_Temperature_Anomalies2.png/1280px-Shifting_Distribution_of_Summer_Temperature_Anomalies2.png)
https://www.noaa.gov/news/summer-2019-was-hottest-on-record-for-northern-hemisphere (https://www.noaa.gov/news/summer-2019-was-hottest-on-record-for-northern-hemisphere)
This is causing a shift in weatherpatterns and more frequent droughts and floods. Food security is at risk.
The most used foodsource in the world, rice, is showing increasing levels of arsenic and lower yields which will negatively affect the poorest populations the most.
The frequency of extreme weather events is also increasing.
Alan, as I interpret the patterns in the chart, the summers in the northern hemisphere are getting hotter (see the dark red section past 3 degrees on the last chart on the right).But what do the numbers mean? Farenheit or Centigrade? And what frequencies do they represent? I can;t decipher the numbers on the left. If it's let's say 1 or 2 extra hot days during a two month summer, that's just a perturbation. If it's ten days that that would be more significant. There's no way to decipher any meaning other than it appears hotter. But by what?
The winters are no picnic either. In Toronto, next week the night temperatures will drop to -14C.
You didn't answer my question. I asked a simple question what do the numbers mean on the x-axis and what do the numbers mean on the y-axis?
You posted a phony chart that has no meaning. It's your job to correct it not mine.
It's your job to educate yourself.That's how to convert people to your side. Insult them.
But here, I'll give you a helping hand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics
It's your job to educate yourself.
But here, I'll give you a helping hand...
You mean your condescending hand?
Short of getting a college or postgraduate course in statistics, those charts are not meant for the general public consumption. These are charts meant for peer-level review (and that literally means rocket scientists). Some of us can understand them thanks to previous statistical education, but they should not be offered to the general public in such a form, nor one should expect the general public to "educate themselves" in college-level statistics in order to understand them.
Ray, were it that normal in the past, no vegetation-dependent wildlife would have survived because left unchecked by man, the fires would have spread everywhere there was vegetation to burn. Maybe some ants, snakes, lizards and other hole-entering creatures could have survived, but even then, you can cook by placing a chicken in a hole and lighting a fire above it. Your nationally symbolic creatures would have sizzled in their holes, barbecued on branches and charred in the meadows.
Sure, settlers probably brought their own dogs now and again, but that would have been much later in history. Camels yes, but I'm sure they didn't think to ship in spare kangaroos and koalas from somewhere, let along eucalyptus trees.
Just saw an interesting documentary about Climate Change from 2017, and I can recommend seeing it if you get the opportunity.
Age of Consequences
The investigation of climate change impacts on increased resource scarcity, migration, and conflict through the lens of US national security and global stability.
http://theageofconsequences.com/
Cheers,
Bart
Climate change has always had a major impact on the destruction of civilizations such as the Mayan, Angkor Wat in Cambodia, even Egypt at one time 4000 years ago, and many others. It also led to major changes in war and peace as to who was in charge.
Just the warming up after the last ice age allowed humans to inhabit the rest of the planet. So warming itself has been very good for the human species. A few more degrees will make it better. It didn't require levels in CO2 to change to have a major effect on human history.
You obviously have not seen the documentary ...Of course not. Alan is too lazy to educate himself. It might interfere with his preconceptions.
Of course not. Alan is too lazy to educate himself. It might interfere with his preconceptions.
Watching propaganda videos hardly counts as education. Unless one studies propaganda, of course.
Of course not. Alan is too lazy to educate himself. It might interfere with his preconceptions.There you go again resorting to personal attacks.
There you go again resorting to personal attacks.It is just a fact that you are intellectually lazy. You have admitted you'd rather blow your brains out than do a de minimus amount of background reading, and you consistently ask people to explain things to you rather than read the material linked to. You think it is everyone else's obligation to educate you, instead of your own.
It is just a fact that you are intellectually lazy. You have admitted you'd rather blow your brains out than do a de minimus amount of background reading, and you consistently ask people to explain things to you rather than read the material linked to. You think it is everyone else's obligation to educate you, instead of your own.Nice try. There's a requirement here that links have to be explained. I'm not going to go off to read every link you post because you're too intellectually lazy or incapable of summarizing the article in your post. Don;t be so lazy yourself and do what the rules request of you.
It is just a fact that you are intellectually lazy. You think it is everyone else's obligation to educate you, instead of your own.
And, if you do provide links to educating material, you're accused of "condescension".I never accused anyone of condescension. Sometime the articles are very informed and a read the whole thing voraciously. Other time, I can't be bothered. Do you read every link that everyone publishes? In any case, the original comment I made about blowing my brains out was a joke. Apparently, some people here have no sense of humor. :)
Pot/Kettle, etc.
I never accused anyone of condescension.
No, but you thanked those who did.
America's largest solar panel supplier and installer sold off. Can't make profit as government subsidies decline. Of course, if the Democrats win in 2020, they'll bail them out and waste more of the taxpayer's money.
"But that side will also face challenges. U.S. government support for solar panels is set to decline in 2020, when the investment tax credit for solar panels drops to 26% from 30%, and continues declining in the years afterward. Werner is confident that solar deployers can cut costs enough to make solar profitable even as support declines, but Zino thinks it’s a serious hurdle.
“My guess is they’re going to have a very difficult time if we don’t get an extension of the tax credit,” he said."
https://www.barrons.com/articles/sunpower-stock-may-struggle-to-shine-after-spinoff-51573557301 (https://www.barrons.com/articles/sunpower-stock-may-struggle-to-shine-after-spinoff-51573557301)
Alan, as I interpret the patterns in the chart, the summers in the northern hemisphere are getting hotter (see the dark red section past 3 degrees on the last chart on the right).
The winters are no picnic either. In Toronto, next week the night temperatures will drop to -14C.
Government shouldn't pick winners and losers in business.
So, is it okay that they subsidize farmers? Fossil fuels?Only under special circumstances such as war or conflict. A natural catastrophe. But not regular business because the government thinks its a good idea.
Why is the flooding in Venice being blamed on climate change?...
Why not? Everything else is. Forest fires? Check. When it is warm - global warming. When it is cold - global warming.
All the snowbirds where I live in New Jersey where its 23 degrees F today are heading for Florida. They're not waiting for global warming.
Why not? Everything else is. Forest fires? Check. When it is warm - global warming. When it is cold - global warming.
I've already explained that: "As polar ice melts, the colder waters from there spread across the world's oceans. So, starved of sea-stored heat due to the influx of colder water, for a while, the winter on land becomes colder too.
However, summer radiation is not affected - the Sun pumps out as usual - and so despite what's happening to the seas, the earth mass heats up, and this heating effect is greater because the reflective (and cooling) value of the ice is lessened as it changes from white ice into dark sea and from being a reflector, turns into an absorber of heat.
The longer this continues and the less ice there is to reflect sunlight, the momentum changes from an initial cooling of ocean waters due to the original inflow of melted ice, into a gradual heating, as that colder water is no longer produced as the ice will have lessened until vanished completely."
Only under special circumstances such as war or conflict. A natural catastrophe. But not regular business because the government thinks its a good idea.
Well, then you'd better have a chat with Uncle Sam. According to The Guardian, those subsidies are running at a significant pace.What's that got to do with me? I said I didn't like subsidies. That was your question.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2018/jul/30/america-spends-over-20bn-per-year-on-fossil-fuel-subsidies-abolish-them
What's that got to do with me? I said I didn't like subsidies. That was your question.
I guess you haven't really thought that through. If polar ice melts more because of higher global temperatures, then the oceans heat up more because of higher global temperatures as well. So there are at least these two phenomena at work here and I have the sneaking suspicion that the heating effect is greater than the cooling effect at any time of the year.
Everytime you eat a steak, think about the subsidy for that corn-fed cattle.Well, at least my tax money is being spent for something I use. :)
And in addition to that, climatologists are observing another change in weather systems. The jetstream over the Arctic region, that is instrumental in distributing the heat in the atmosphere just like the oceans are doing with gulf streams, tends to meander in a North/South direction as it travels East. That meandering caused High-pressure systems to be replaced by Low-pressure and thus a change in precipitation at given locations.
Now, that meandering is slowing down because the heat difference between the equator and the Poles is getting smaller. This then causes High-pressure systems to linger on at certain locations longer than they used to, and thus cause prolonged/more severe heatwaves.
Exactly as predicted, the extremes are becoming more extreme, and it's already noticeable and getting more prominent. Lows are slowly getting a bit higher, and high are getting much higher. So there will still be cold-spells and heat-spells, but their amplitude is increasing and their average is creeping up.
So why did it happen 107 years ago?
Well, at least my tax money is being spent for something I use. :)
It? There have been weather extremes in the past, but in recent times it is becoming more the norm than the exception.Bart: You're the one who claimed the one today is caused by global warming because the temperatures are getting closer between the poles and equator. But this happened in 1911 as well. That's 108 years before those changes occured. So these are just typical Earth occurrences in weather, rare in frequency, but not caused by some sort of catastrophic climate change. The problem is the supporters of climate change attribute every extreme weather event to global warming. These are phony claims to stir the pot and get more adherents. You're overplaying your hand and people see it for what it is. You're actually hurting your arguments because why should anyone believe anything else you say? It creates distrust.
Bart: You're the one who claimed the one today is caused by global warming because the temperatures are getting closer between the poles and equator. But this happened in 1911 as well. That's 108 years before those changes occured. So these are just typical Earth occurrences in weather, rare in frequency, but not caused by some sort of catastrophic climate change. The problem is the supporters of climate change attribute every extreme weather event to global warming. These are phony claims to stir the pot and get more adherents. You're overplaying your hand and people see it for what it is. You're actually hurting your arguments because why should anyone believe anything else you say? It creates distrust.
This year, and it's only early November, the distance between the top of the snow on my driveway and my waist seems shorter. And the air temperature is lower as well.
Well, I've noticed that as I get older, I'm getting shorter. So that may account for the higher levels of snow. 8)
In other words, at this extremely early onset of winter, the snow is getting higher, we are getting shorter, our arteries narrower, and the snow shovel seems also heavier.Fortunately where I live in a 55+ community, the Home owner's association brings in a professional snow removal company to do all the heavy snow removal. But I do have a snow shovel sitting in view in my garage to show to relatives who visit less they think I'm lazy. When they notice my clean driveway and sidewalks, I just point to the shovel with a smile and say nothing. :)
The good thing about a lot of snow and shorter outdoorsmen is that the falls are less dangerous.
... the snow shovel seems also heavier.
The good thing about a lot of snow and shorter outdoorsmen is that the falls are less dangerous.
Solution:
Great!
Turn snow into ice, and burn some more fossil fuel in the process ...
Why is the flooding in Venice being blamed on climate change?...
(https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=131117.0;attach=203883)Definitely global warming. Those gondolas were gasoline powered.
I kept saying this:
Flooding in Venice in 1825 does not mean that today's situation is the same...
1. Yes, this time it’s different. Like socialism. This time it’s going to work. And both, climate change “science” and socialism shall be unquestionably believed in, like a religion.
2. Beachfront properties in Florida are going like hot cakes. People are buying over the phone, sight unseen, no photographs needed. I guess, in just a “few years,” according to Karla Marx and some documentaries, those buyers will realize just how stupid they were. And turn to religion, for salvation and penance.
Yes, this time it’s different. Like socialism. This time it’s going to work. And both, climate change “science” and socialism shall be unquestionably believed in, like a religion.Socialism- Climate change - religion.
Beachfront properties in Florida are going like hot cakes. People are buying over the phone, sight unseen, no photographs needed. I guess, in just a “few years,” according to Karla Marx and some documentaries, those buyers will realize just how stupid they were. And turn to religion, for salvation and penance.
Here's why solar is cheap. Get other people to pay for your "free" electricity.
"Thanks to the introduction of significant federal and state incentives, bringing solar into your home is finally obtainable."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujnqqr830gk&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujnqqr830gk&feature=youtu.be)
While nutrient run-off has been known for decades, researchers say that climate change is making the lack of oxygen worse.
Around 700 ocean sites are now suffering from low oxygen, compared with 45 in the 1960s. Researchers say the depletion is threatening species including tuna, marlin and sharks.
As more carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, much of the generated heat is absorbed by the oceans, and the warmer water loses oxygen. It is estimated that between 1960 and 2010, the amount of the gas dissolved in the oceans declined on average by 2%, but in some tropical locations the oxygen loss can amount up to 40%.Man has an effect on the environment. Increasing population does that. What are the solutions to control population? How do we face ethical and moral decisions regarding that? After all, China had a one child policy that was repugnant. I don't think the world wants to go down that rat hole.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-50690995
Man has an effect on the environment. Increasing population does that. What are the solutions to control population? How do we face ethical and moral decisions regarding that? After all, China had a one child policy that was repugnant. I don't think the world wants to go down that rat hole.Do you think that unrestricted population growth will solve all problems? That smells like a giant Ponzi scheme.
Do you think that unrestricted population growth will solve all problems? That smells like a giant Ponzi scheme.
Do you think that unrestricted population growth will solve all problems? That smells like a giant Ponzi scheme.When did I say that?
When the modern age finally arrives, in the form of female-regulated birth control, the birth rate tends to decline. In Italy, once renowned for large families, the current birth rate is below replacement, as it is for the EU as a whole. (EU population growth, which is positive, comes from immigration.) It may come as a surprise to those who live in patriarchic societies, but women don't necessary enjoy having ten children.
[...]
Since we are now in a warming period similar to the MWP, the risk of another 39 year drought during this century should be considered and planned for.
Trump for Chief Ranger.
But the big difference is that this time around it is caused by humans, and nature (e.g. from ocean currents, plus global warming due to CO2 also creates more biomass as fuel for wildfires) can still add to that. And extreme weather is increasing, and it could persist for longer periods.
The particulate matter and other residuals are a healthhazard.
Ah! You mean, if it weren't for mankind's contribution to climate change we'd still be in the Little Ice Age, which is preferable. Right? ;)
Wrong, again. :(
My reading of the evidence is that uncertainty in estimates of climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 is very high (putting aside the serious questions about validity of the underlying climate models). Moreover the models are running hot (predictions compared to actual, especially in the troposphere which is where the models suggest we should observe the most anthropogenic warming), which to this informal Bayesian suggests we give more confidence to sensitivity estimates on the lower end of the scale.
As an economist, I note that our very crude estimates suggest net benefits from some additional warming. The costs of most proposed measures are catastrophic (to borrow a term), especially for the world's poorest. Moreover mitigation is rarely proposed, though it is common (see the barrier they're now finishing in Venice, or Holland).
I see a lot of reasons to ask probing questions about these strong policy proposals; certainly to be far from sure that they are the right approach.
Warmer weather has been benefiting man since the Ice Age ended. Why wouldn't a little more warming continue to help?
Not in the Arctic. Too warm for seal hunting, and not warm enough for growing weed.I'm in San Diego Diego California fir a few days with my wife. Everywhere you walk, you get a good whiff of marijuana. Nobody here is waiting for global warming.
Historical perspective is always good, the western US and water: https://getpocket.com/explore/item/how-the-west-was-lost (https://getpocket.com/explore/item/how-the-west-was-lost).
Historical perspective is always good, the western US and water: https://getpocket.com/explore/item/how-the-west-was-lost (https://getpocket.com/explore/item/how-the-west-was-lost).
I must, once again, express my annoyance with your habit of posting links without even a hint of what they are about and the point they make.
How hard can it be? "Historical perspective", so it's probably not about the future, and "the western US and water" makes me guess that it's not about Europe. And in a thead about Extreme Weather makes me expect it to have something to do with climate and other conspiracies.Bart I think it would be helpful if you summed up in one sentence the point of the article or maybe a section of it. Or give your opinion about a subject then use the link to provide backup for further information. Then if someone is interested in reading the whole thing, they would. It's unfair and unreasonable to expect people to read long articles just because you posted a link.
Of course, if one is not interested in stuff like that, then, by all means, one should not click the link.
BTW, your comment, coming from someone who likes to post doctored images as a comment without explanation, strikes me as a bit odd.
Bart I think it would be helpful if you summed up in one sentence the point of the article or maybe a section of it. Or give your opinion about a subject then use threw link to provide backup ir further information. Then if someone is interested in reading the whole thing, they would. It's unfair and unreasonable to expect people to read long articles just because you posted a link.
Bart I think it would be helpful if you summed up in one sentence the point of the article or maybe a section of it. Or give your opinion about a subject then use the link to provide backup for further information. Then if someone is interested in reading the whole thing, they would. It's unfair and unreasonable to expect people to read long articles just because you posted a link.
Alan, I didn't provide that linked article for you. You never read or listen to anything anyone suggests. ;)Robert I don't understand you're post.i was responding to Bart and Slobo.
Somehow the west wil get through water shortages just as the world will get through climate change as they have in the past. Sure there's will be displacements. But life will go on.
Of course life will go on, mother nature will endure. But wouldn't it be a good idea if we did things a bit more carefully so as to mitigate against pointless suffering. Just sayin'.Sure. But Powell wasn't going to stop the westward migration of America because he thought there would be water problems. Any more than people will drastically change their lives because the sea might rise two inches 50 years from now.
Sure. But Powell wasn't going to stop the westward migration of America because he thought there would be water problems.
Any more than people will drastically change their lives because the sea might rise two inches 50 years from now.
How hard can it be?...
Quite a few posts recently have consisted solely of a link to an external site. Such posts are no longer acceptable: they are difficult to distinguish from clickbait.
This is a discussion forum; in case anyone is in any doubt about what that means, the forum exists for members to hold discussions to which those who choose to post can make their own contributions.
That does not preclude including links to external web pages if they are relevant to the topic under discussion. However, any post which includes such a link must also include text which:
- summarises the information contained in the linked page;
- indicates, if it is not obvious, why that information is of interest;
- if the linked page is long, indicates where in that page the relevant information is to be found.
People change how they do things all the time based on new circumstances and information.
This hard:
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=125586.msg1052569#msg1052569
So? The link was preceded by a summary/introduction.
P.S. And since when were you appointed moderator?
People change how they do things all the time based on new circumstances and information.But Powell did not stop westward migration. The West was populated despite water issues.
You wanna bet? They've already started to, what are you talking about.
And climate change is only affecting us on the margins. Most people ignore it although I had to pay a dime for a bag to take my groceries here in California. And you need to use paper not plastic straws. Most everyday activities area not affected. In NJ, if you live along the shore, then you're concerned more. People raise their homes on stilts. But they're not moving out. In fact real estate prices are higher than ever in those places.
... the increased immigration from Long Island which faces higher water levels than the NJ coastline.
Nope, not for that reason. People are fleeing LI after Karla Marx killed Amazon arrival there 😉
Robert, since I didn’t take $100 from you, consider that as given to you. I expect a prompt return of the said $100, within 15 days.They won't get ir.
In any case it wasn't a tax incentive rather waiving taxes. So now that Amazon isn't moving there, NYC doesn't get the taxes in the first place to give back. So all that's happened is thousands of jobs will go elsewhere and all the associated wealth created by those jobs will be lost by NYC.
What convoluted horse manure.
If a company can't finance its own expansion, maybe it deserves to go belly-up to make room for one that can. Is that too free a market for you?
Apparently, lefties never had a problem with tax incentives for their virtue signaling: “green” cars, solar panels, etc. But God forbid a company that would bring 25,000 jobs and pay enormous taxes along the way get some tax incentives as well.
Amazon is doing just fine and has no problem financing it's own expansion. They didn't like the business-adverse attitude and went elsewhere.
Nobody less than liberal Democrats the Mayor and Governor of New York made the deal and urged Amazon to change their mind and go through with the deal. They understood the importance of additional jobs and wealth to NY and New Yorkers all at little cost to NY but with huge positive wealth to the state. But of course foreigners here know better about America and NYC. So thousands of poor blacks who lived nearby where Amazon was to move (I worked there for 40 years), have lost an opportunity for good paying jobs. So Amazon moved the headquarters to a different state and the poor blacks will just have to stay poor. I'm sure they're thankful for saving them from something terrible.
...handing over taxpayer money to corporations.
Do you really not understand how these things work, or just pretend? I am genuinely puzzled.
Nobody less than liberal Democrats the Mayor and Governor of New York made the deal and urged Amazon to change their mind and go through with the deal. They understood the importance of additional jobs and wealth to NY and New Yorkers all at little cost to NY but with huge positive wealth to the state. But of course foreigners here know better about America and NYC. So thousands of poor blacks who lived nearby where Amazon was to move (I worked there for 40 years), have lost an opportunity for good paying jobs. So Amazon moved the headquarters to a different state and the poor blacks will just have to stay poor. I'm sure they're thankful for saving them from something terrible.
I'm getting a little sick and tired of being called an interfering foreigner for voicing my opinion that's different from yours,Since you don't pay NYC or NY State taxes, it's a little presuprious to tell New Yorkers how they should handle taxes that they do pay. It would be like me telling you how many times a week you should feed steak to your family. It's none of my business. That's The problem with leftists and socialists They"re always ready to spend someone else's money or tell them how to do it. .
But the main point is that you have again completely missed the point of the discussion. You complain of left-wing policies and government interference yet you're in favour of handing over taxpayer money to corporations.
As a foreigner, I understand that Amazon's move to Virginia will be of great benefit to the state of Virginia. That seems like a good thing.New York's loss is Virginia's gain. Lower taxes in Texas and Florida draws businesses from Higher taxed states like California New York and new Jersey. What Robert doesn't get that Slobo tried to explain to him is that reducing taxes is not a subsidy. It's letting people and companies keep more of the money they earned. Money that the government never earned or had an intrinsic ownership of.
Since you don't pay NYC or NY State taxes, it's a little presuprious to tell New Yorkers how they should handle taxes that they do pay. It would be like me telling you how many times a week you should feed steak to your family. It's none of my business. That's The problem with leftists and socialists They"re always ready to spend someone else's money or tell them how to do it. .
Robert, you occasionally make sensible comments that even I can agree with. But here, you just got off the deep end.
New York's loss is Virginia's gain. Lower taxes in Texas and Florida draws businesses from Higher taxed states like California New York and new Jersey. What Robert doesn't get that Slobo tried to explain to him is that reducing taxes is not a subsidy. It's letting people and companies keep more of the money they earned. Money that the government never earned or had an intrinsic ownership of.
Historical perspective is always good, the western US and water: https://getpocket.com/explore/item/how-the-west-was-lost (https://getpocket.com/explore/item/how-the-west-was-lost).
I've made it clear before now that posts which include links to external sites must explain what the link illustrates and why it should be read. See here (https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=125586.0).
Jeremy
Picking winners is when NYS subsidizes a particular industry like the solar panel industry rather than leaving them to compete with other power industries.
How does your support of tax relief/concession/suspension/subsidy/whatever mesh with your often stated view that government should not try to pick winners?
Warmer weather has been benefiting man since the Ice Age ended. Why wouldn't a little more warming continue to help?
We see the effects in melting ice, burning forests, warming oceans and heat waves, like the one in France this summer that killed 1,500 people. Qatar has become so hot it has started air conditioning the outside, and record-breaking heat waves in India and Pakistan caused temperatures approaching 124 degrees Fahrenheit in some places.
Heat is the number-one weather killer in the U.S., causing up to 1,500 deaths a year, more deaths than hurricanes, floods or tornadoes. By midcentury, if action isn’t taken, the U.S. can expect the number of days where temperatures exceed 105 degrees to triple.
Heat can have devastating impacts on the body, including heat stress, heat stroke and links to chronic kidney disease. It exacerbates existing conditions such as heart and respiratory diseases. It can also lead to premature births, which can have a significant impact on the long-term health of the child.
“Extreme heat is among the deadliest weather hazards society faces,” reads the “Killer Heat” report published by the UCS. “It is possible [heat extremes] will affect daily life for the average U.S. resident more than any other facet of climate change.”
Heat is the number-one weather killer in the U.S., causing up to 1,500 deaths a year, more deaths than hurricanes, floods or tornadoes. By midcentury, if action isn’t taken, the U.S. can expect the number of days where temperatures exceed 105 degrees to triple.
Les,
That's very strange! How did those ancient Egyptians cope? They lived in a very hot and arid region with summertime temperatures often above 40 degrees C. They didn't have air-conditioning, or vehicles and cranes, yet succeeded in building impressively massive Pyramids, dragging huge blocks of stone several kilometres, and created one of the most impressive ancient civilizations on Earth.
Do you think perhaps in this modern era we have become too 'namby pamby'. ;D
They did it, Ray, by using slaves, expendable people whose deaths didn't matter for as long as they could be replaced by more of the same. Much like the cotton fields, then. Or the concentration camps of WW2.
They did it, Ray, by using slaves, expendable people whose deaths didn't matter for as long as they could be replaced by more of the same. Much like the cotton fields, then. Or the concentration camps of WW2.
2 degree increase up in Canada might be appreciated even though they aren't building pyramids. :)
Les,
That's very strange! How did those ancient Egyptians cope? They lived in a very hot and arid region with summertime temperatures often above 40 degrees C. They didn't have air-conditioning, or vehicles and cranes, yet succeeded in building impressively massive Pyramids, dragging huge blocks of stone several kilometres, and created one of the most impressive ancient civilizations on Earth.
Do you think perhaps in this modern era we have become too 'namby pamby'. ;D
Let's not forget that an average global temperature rise of 2 degrees can be a much larger increase locally, especially in the Northern hemisphere (on land).Yes, Bart, and the sky is falling, but it can fall much faster locally.
2 degree increase up in Canada might be appreciated even though they aren't building pyramids. :)
You've mentioned the potential benefits of increases in temperature in Canada before, albeit maybe in jest. You realize that it might be accompanied by turning Iowa into a desert. Would that be ok?Iowa? Where's Iowa?
Funny how we've gone from man-induced climate being impossible, if not a hoax, to now wondering if climate change might be a good thing. Seems irresponsible to not also consider that it might also be a bad thing. Shouldn't you want to study that a bit more before making any assumptions either way?
Dear Rob, you seem to be transitioning faster and faster to the dark side? What’s up with all that cynicism?
Are you sure, Rob? You trust the BBC, don't you? ;)
Have a look at the following article.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/egyptians/pyramid_builders_01.shtml
"Almost every family in Egypt was either directly or indirectly involved in pyramid building. The pyramid labourers were clearly not slaves. They may well have been the unwilling victims of the corvée or compulsory labour system, the system that allowed the pharaoh to compel his people to work for three or four month shifts on state projects. If this is the case, we may imagine that they were selected at random from local registers.
But, in a complete reversal of the story of oppression told by Herodotus, Lehner and Hawass have suggested that the labourers may have been volunteers. Zahi Hawass believes that the symbolism of the pyramid was already strong enough to encourage people to volunteer for the supreme national project. Mark Lehner has gone further, comparing pyramid building to American Amish barn raising, which is done on a volunteer basis. He might equally well have compared it to the staffing of archaeological digs, which tend to be manned by enthusiastic, unpaid volunteers supervised by a few paid professionals."
The "temporary workers" were indeed slaves: they were paid in kind: food, just like in the cotton fields.
If you are willing to believe that payment in food alone is not slavery, then there was no slavery in Belsen, none in the USA, either, so we can all relax and have a cup of tea and declare that it was all just a huge misunderstanding, and that we can now re-erect all those statues that we pulled down.
:-)
Doesn't look like slavery to me.
Did you read the entire article, Rob?
"The temporary workers
1. The many thousands of manual labourers were housed in a temporary camp beside the pyramid town. Here they received a subsistence wage in the form of rations. The standard Old Kingdom (2686-2181 BC) ration for a labourer was ten loaves and a measure of beer. (per day)
We can just about imagine a labouring family consuming ten loaves in a day, but supervisors and those of higher status were entitled to hundreds of loaves and many jugs of beer a day. These were supplies which would not keep fresh for long, so we must assume that they were, at least in part, notional rations, which were actually paid in the form of other goods - or perhaps credits. 2. In any case, the pyramid town, like all other Egyptian towns, would soon have developed its own economy as everyone traded unwanted rations for desirable goods or skills.
3. Doesn't look like slavery to me.
You're not looking critically, just from the perspective that might be bent to suit your narrative.
It's not my narrative. I'm just quoting the archaeological experts in the field.
But Ray, such experts change tack whever there's a fresh field to plough, a new set of tombs to raid or distinguished "papers" to write. Nobody wins awards doing the same old same old: esoteric academia depends on fresh discovery, real or imaginary - nobody can prove you right or wrong in either case. The world's theirs (not to mention the grants and travel opportunities) for the claiming.
True, Rob, true.
But only for archeologists and historians that look a couple of thousands years back. Those who look a couple of millions of billions years back, like climatologists, are always right, intentions always pure, never swayed by the grants and travel opportunities ;)
... I'd love to be up there again, heading out somewhere...
But Ray, such experts change tack whever there's a fresh field to plough, a new set of tombs to raid or distinguished "papers" to write. Nobody wins awards doing the same old same old: esoteric academia depends on fresh discovery, real or imaginary - nobody can prove you right or wrong in either case. The world's theirs (not to mention the grants and travel opportunities) for the claiming.
:-)
A message to the Hollywood elites:
;D ;D ;D
Rarely do they change tack unanimously. History is an important subject, and as new evidence becomes available which appears to be in conflict with previously accepted understanding or interpretations of an issue, we should always modify our understanding, or at least question it.
If one looks at the history of droughts and floods in Australia, there is strong evidence that the current drought and heat waves are not unprecedented. Studies of ice cores from the Antarctic have provided a 1,000 year record of droughts in South West Australia. 8 mega droughts have been identified, 6 of which occurred before before the industrial revolution, and the worst one occurred in the 12th century A.D. and lasted 39 years.
Newspaper records from the 19th century describe terrible heat waves that killed many people in Australia. It's reasonable to question the accuracy of the reported temperatures which were as high as 129 Degrees F (or 54 degrees C). They might be off by a couple of degrees compared with modern methods of taking temperature readings, but I doubt that local newspapers would get away with reporting fake news about people dying during heat waves that didn't occur.
A major problem for us all, is that so many citizens don't seem to understand that although the damage caused by extreme weather events, whether droughts, floods, or cyclones, might be unprecedented, because of the huge increase in population, the actual severity of the extreme weather event, in terms of flood height, drought length, maximum temperatures, and so on, is very unlikely to be unprecedented.
As a result of these current bush fires in Australia, there's going to be a major push to persuade the government to drastically reduce our CO2 emissions, because of a deluded belief that CO2 is the culprit.
If the Media would spend more time reporting on the history of climate change and extreme weather events, we'd stand a better chance of protecting ourselves from the very likely repetition of such events.
Anyone in the future wondering what happened to Australia, here's how it worked.
The leaders of both major parties were not going to do anything that would risk their wallets or the income of their mates in the mining industry. So step one was climate change denial. Step two was yes it's happening but we're not the cause. The current prime minister Scott Morrison is now at step two. Step three was yes, we caused it but now it's too late to do anything.
That's the plan. The Australian public went along with it.
The opinions of Ray and other supporters are a great evil in the world.
The other side of the same coin are the mega wealthy suppporters of people like Greta Thunberg. Their plan is to panic the world into accepting a much lower standard of living while the wealthy get to keep their extravagant lifestyle. Watch to see which country is the first to spend billions of taxpayers' money on solar arrays. Billions that go straight into the pockets of the government's wealthy mates.
On the whole the green energy movement is a con. I certainly don't begrudge people their electric cars, but globally it's little more than virtue signalling. There are not enough resources in the Earth to allow even one medium sized European country to convert their fleet to electric given the current technology. The industry is based on the exploitation of poor countires and the workers in the mines are fundamentally slave labour.
For what it's worth, I was brought up in Melbourne and remember watching the Dandenong Ranges go up in smoke in the late sixties. I was in the middle of the Ash Wednesday fires in 1983. My parents, grandparents and great grandparents all were country people and knew about bushfires. The current fires are not getting gradually worse.
They are orders of magnitude worse.
Unmatched in the historical record. Where I now live here in New Zealand we are over 2,000 km from Australia. Last week there was so much smoke in the upper atmosphere that the street lights went on and it was too dark to see indoors without lights. The forests that have burned will not regenerate, The creatures that lived there will go extinct.
In New South Wales there are towns slowly shutting up shop because the farms that supprted them no longer have stock. The sustained heat has made the animals sterile.
I haven't got the figures in front of me, but I suspect the fires in the Amazon, Indonesia, the Congo and the Siberian wilderness are worse.
Cheery thought for the day.
... The opinions of Ray and other supporters are a great evil in the world...
Oh, get a life, mate! >:(
While others are trying to make it harder?
https://oec.world/en/profile/country/aus/
Exports
In 2017 Australia exported $243B, making it the 20th largest exporter in the world. During the last five years the exports of Australia have decreased at an annualized rate of -0.6%, from $249B in 2012 to $243B in 2017. The most recent exports are led by Iron Ore which represent 19.8% of the total exports of Australia, followed by Coal Briquettes, which account for 19.3%.
Which kind of explains the (short-sighted) stance of Australian politics.
Oh, get a life, mate! >:(
Thank you for your kind suggestion but I assure you I have one already and very nice it is too.David, American free speech is constitutionally protected. It's been one of our cherished rights. Nazis are allowed to march in the street. Not because they get much support. But the right to free speech is so constitutionally ingrained in most Americans, that we allow them their rights as perverted most believe they are. The argument is that let the fresh air of sunlight be the cure. Opposite thought is the sunlight. Ideas should stand or not through debate and thought. But we should not close down ideas just because you have different beliefs. Otherwise you can justify book burning and burning witches at the stake, something that is very common in the world. It's a slippery slope once you start shutting down speech one side feels is offensive. Pretty soon, political thought and religious practices are shut down and people are put in jail for their thinking. All under the guise of some people just knowing what is right.
I'm raising a question around the common response to awkward ideas being "well, everyone has the right to their own opinions".
Of course, that has never been true. Most countries will not tolerate opinions that child exploitation is okay, for example. You will be aware in your own country that some opinions that were quite normal 50 years ago would now get you in deep poo. And if we travel in non-western cultures it's politic to keep our mouths shut on some topics. Life saving, even.
I'm suggesting that while the right to certain opinions may be cultural, and change with time, there are some things that we have no right to believe. And yes, I'm aware of the internal contradiction here.
I've been looking for a word to describe those who have power or influence and who have known about anthropogenic climate change but continue to deny it publicly. Governmental leaders in other words. Today the nearest word I can find is "perverts".
My belief is that climate change deniers are supporting this lot. I wouldn't want to see their ideas banned, fat lot of good that would do anyway, but I think I may start calling them out on this. I suspect that the only effect this will have will be to get me into hot water again, but I think I'd rather run the risk of being wrong in 10 years time than to have said nothing.
Such is life.
If I read you correctly, you are saying that nothing here, today, is new.
Just for the sake if argument, let's assume you are correct. Does it not, nonetheless, make good sense for mankind to reduce all possible additional contributory actions that it can, simply in order not to add to the problems we face?
David, American free speech is constitutionally protected. It's been one of our cherished rights. Nazis are allowed to march in the street. Not because they get much support. But the right to free speech is so constitutionally ingrained in most Americans, that we allow them their rights as perverted most believe they are. The argument is that let the fresh air of sunlight be the cure. Opposite thought is the sunlight. Ideas should stand or not through debate and thought. But we should not close down ideas just because you have different beliefs. Otherwise you can justify book burning and burning witches at the stake, something that is very common in the world. It's a slippery slope once you start shutting down speech one side feels is offensive. Pretty soon, political thought and religious practices are shut down and people are put in jail for their thinking. All under the guise of some people just knowing what is right.
Of course it makes good sense, but in order to do that one must first be aware of the history of those extreme weather events that have had little to do with human activity in the past, and then be confident that such extreme weather events are getting worse, over time, and that the reason they are getting worse is due to specific human activities, such as human emissions of CO2.
Just to make sure, do you think that CO2 emissions contribute to global warming?I believe from his past statements that it will lead to improved vegetation growth which is a net positive.
Just to make sure, do you think that CO2 emissions contribute to global warming?
... The following article delves into this issue in some detail. For those too lazy to read it, look at attached image...
Everything is connected to some degree, and everything is subject to 'cause and effect'. Even Gautama Buddha understood this 2500 years ago.
However, it doesn't seem plausible to me that such tiny amounts of CO2 increases in the atmosphere, currently at 0.044% could have any significant 'bad' effect on climate.
That position defies physics, and logic.Every variable in the world is either going up, down or remaining the same. The fact two things are going in the same direction is not proof that one is causing the other. Most of these things are coincidental. It just could be that nature declared it was time for temperature to go up as it has in the past. So we look for reasons and see that CO2 is going up too. Well, they may be causative and they may not be. But you just can't assume they are. You're science oriented and know that the way it works. So you shouldn't use layman analysis. You know better and are smarter than that Bart.
The fact that it's a small amount makes it an even more urgent issue. If such an amount can affect global warming to this extent, we shouldn't leave its emissions out of control.
BTW, if you deny that CO2 plays a significant role, then why does global temperature rise, more or less in line with CO2 emissions? It's not due to differences in orbit around the sun, so what is it then?
Every variable in the world is either going up, down or remaining the same. The fact two things are going in the same direction is not proof that one is causing the other. Most of these things are coincidental. It just could be that nature declared it was time for temperature to go up as it has in the past. So we look for reasons and see that CO2 is going up too. Well, they may be causative and they may not be. But you just can't assume they are. You're science oriented and know that the way it works. So you shouldn't use layman analysis. You know better and are smarter than that Bart.
Every variable in the world is either going up, down or remaining the same. The fact two things are going in the same direction is not proof that one is causing the other. Most of these things are coincidental. It just could be that nature declared it was time for temperature to go up as it has in the past. So we look for reasons and see that CO2 is going up too. Well, they may be causative and they may not be. But you just can't assume they are. You're science oriented and know that the way it works. So you shouldn't use layman analysis. You know better and are smarter than that Bart.
... BTW, if you deny that CO2 plays a significant role, then why does global temperature rise, more or less in line with CO2 emissions?...
correlation charts between cheese consumption and people dying entangled in their bed sheets
(https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=131117.0;attach=205696;image)
You're dodging the question.
n
I doubt you’d be happy with my answer: that's the way the cookie crumbles - that is, the stochastic nature of natural events.
The fact that I may or may not know the right answer doesn’t make your answer any more correct.
However, it doesn't seem plausible to me that such tiny amounts of CO2 increases in the atmosphere, currently at 0.044% could have any significant 'bad' effect on climate.
Strawman.
No matter how skilled you are at making pretty charts with Photoshop, science is not a matter of opinion.
Ask the residents of Samoa, (or the rest of the idiot anti-vaxxers) who thought they knew more about immunology than does medical science.
Strawman.Are you an anti-vaxer too?
No matter how skilled you are at making pretty charts with Photoshop, science is not a matter of opinion.
Strawman.
Are you an anti-vaxer too?Strawman question. :)
Strawman question. :)
Oops.
Glacier National Park is replacing signs that predicted its glaciers would be gone by 2020
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-national-park-2020-trnd/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-national-park-2020-trnd/index.html)
Oops.The link is to an article on CNN. I thought CNN was left wing fake news that couldn't be trusted. Should I believe the entire article or just the part where it says the signs are being changed?
Glacier National Park is replacing signs that predicted its glaciers would be gone by 2020
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-national-park-2020-trnd/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/08/us/glaciers-national-park-2020-trnd/index.html)
The link is to an article on CNN. I thought CNN was left wing fake news that couldn't be trusted. Should I believe the entire article or just the part where it says the signs are being changed?
You're right Frank. I think the park should put the signs back up so we can claim CNN is still doing fake news.It is just so confusing with you guys. If you agree with a news story, it's true; if you disagree with a news story, it's left wing media fake news.
It is just so confusing with you guys. If you agree with a news story, it's true; if you disagree with a news story, it's left wing media fake news.You're right Frank. It is all very confusing. Just this morning my wife told me it was going to rain. I'm still waiting. Dry as a bone. So now it seems my wife is passing on fake weather reports. I don't know where to turn any longer.
You're right Frank. It is all very confusing. Just this morning my wife told me it was going to rain. I'm still waiting. Dry as a bone. So now it seems my wife is passing on fake weather reports. I don't know where to turn any longer.Ask another woman.
Ask another woman.What's the matter? You want me dead? :)
What's the matter? You want me dead? :)
... This is clearly driven by man-made climate change...
Australia urged nearly a quarter of a million people to evacuate their homes on Friday and prepared military backup as authorities said the next few hours could be “very, very challenging” even as rain poured down in some parts.
“Even with rain in Melbourne, even with forecast better conditions next week, there is a long way to go in what has been an unprecedented fire event...and, of course, we know that we have many weeks of the fire season to run,” Daniel Andrews, the premier of Victoria, told a televised briefing.
“The next few hours are going to be very, very challenging.”
;D ;D ;D
Welcome to LuLa, indeed. We’ve been sorely missing another alarmist.
Here in Australia, we have just experienced both the hottest year on record and the driest year on record. This has given rise to an unprecedented fire season that started last July, in the middle of winter. There are hundreds of fires and many remain out of control. They are likely to continue for weeks or months. So far 107,000 square kilometres have burned, just under the size of Cuba or Tennessee. This is clearly driven by man-made climate change, as was predicted for this time by the Garnaut study ten years ago.
Some days in Canberra smoke from fires to the East and to the South-West have given us the worst air quality of any city in the world. I recently published a Blog post that shows nearby wildlife in previous months and the effect of smoka haze last Sunday and outlines the Climate Crisis context.
https://murrayfoote.com/2020/01/05/australia-burning/?
Welcome to LuLa, indeed. We’ve been sorely missing another alarmist.
Remind me...how many people have been arrested for setting fires? Just curious.
Here in Australia, we have just experienced both the hottest year on record and the driest year on record. This has given rise to an unprecedented fire season that started last July, in the middle of winter. There are hundreds of fires and many remain out of control. They are likely to continue for weeks or months. So far 107,000 square kilometres have burned, just under the size of Cuba or Tennessee. This is clearly driven by man-made climate change, as was predicted for this time by the Garnaut study ten years ago.
[...]
We can't control wind and heat but we can control the fuel load on the forest floor through sensible management, winter back-burning and firewood removal.
Really?
And don't the rising CO2 concentrations add even more biomass to burn?
Ray
Droughts have always a natural cycle in Australia but average temperatures are higher than they have ever been and also the landscape drier.
Update: I've just seen a news report that indicates that hardly any of the fires in New South Wales and Victoria were deliberately lit:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-11/australias-fires-reveal-arson-not-a-major-cause/11855022
Whoopee! It's been raining in Brisbane, Australia, for the past hour. ;D
Not necessarily, Murray. Australian scientists drilling in the Antarctic, at Law Dome, have gathered a 1,000 year record of past droughts in Australia, examining the composition of layers of ice which are affected by conditions which also cause droughts in Australia.But that's just droughts, and as compared to the millenial drought of around twenty years ago. The pre-European ecology, prior to the introduction of sheep and cattle and the elimination of perennial grasses, was quite different and Aborigines were still undertaking cool burns in their traditional context. Last year was a record high temperature and there's been a year beating the previous high probably every second year in the last ten. Last year was also the driest since 1902. Accurate recordings of temperature only date from the adoption of the Stevenson Cage in 1908 (a standardised shaded environment). But from what I have read, we are experiencing the hottest temperatures for thousands of years.
They have identified 8 mega droughts during that 1,000 year period. 6 of those mega droughts occurred before significant rises in CO2 levels from industrialization. The worst, or at least longest drought, was during the 12th to 13th century A.D., and lasted 39 years from AD 1174–1212.
We can't be sure of the precise temperatures in those times, but the Medieval Warm Period is considered by many experts in the field to be at least as warm as the current period, and likely warmer.
http://www.antarctica.gov.au/news/2014/antarctic-ice-cores-tell-1000-year-australian-drought-story
At this stage I doubt that we can be certain about the number of fires lit deliberately, but analysis of past fires during past droughts suggest a much higher number than 1% are deliberately lit, so the question that 'thinking' people should address is 'Why is that number of deliberately lit fires, or arson, so dramatically lower on this occasion?'I don't see any reason to doubt the ABC article. I think the obvious answer is that the conditions are very different this time. This is not like previous fire seasons. The unprecedented heat and drought can create its own weather conditions on peak days and a CFA controller in Victoria is quoted in that article as saying that most of the fires were caused by dry lightening. Hence the unprecedented fires which even burn rainforest.
Another cause of the fires is due to accidental ignition resulting from sparks from machinery, vehicles and trains, and many other activities, including kids just playing around.
Congratulations.
It does seem to be more like a drizle for the moment, but in a few hours you'll get a short lasting shower, and then it's over for a couple of days. It cannot be nearly enough to offset the drought though.
I have a theory that the warmer it gets, the more evaporation and the more precipitation. Maybe the extra rains come at the wrong times in the wrong places.
I have a theory that the warmer it gets, the more evaporation and the more precipitation. Maybe the extra rains come at the wrong times in the wrong places.Exactly. All that rain has been coming down on the other side of Earth, right here in Ontario.
Well, it's about 60 degrees F right now in New Jersey and humid. No rain.
This is why I find the widespread mania about the harmful effects of CO2 on climate, very troubling. The practical solution to our problems are more flood-mitigation dams and long-distance water pipes, stricter building codes based upon the past history of extreme weather events in the region, regular burn-off of forest debris during safe conditions, as the Aboriginals used to do, and so on.
It’s not a question of religion, it’s a question of science. Whether we are in a Climate Crisis caused by human actions such as burning fossil fuels is a question for scientists to answer. And they have. It doesn’t really matter how comfortable we are with the way things are. The governments of all developed countries apart from Australia and the United States recognise the necessity to deal with man-made climate change. In Australia it’s not just the scientists, it’s also the fire chiefs that are calling for that because they have seen how unprecedented current conditions are.
Increases in average temperature don’t just affect bushfires and extreme weather events, they also affect the viability of agricultural land and the availability of water. The longer we wait to address underlying causes of change, the more drastic the responses will need to be and the less effective they may be.
... In Australia it’s not just the scientists, it’s also the fire chiefs that are calling for that because they have seen how unprecedented current conditions are....
OMG, this takes the cake! Fire chiefs spoke! Imagine! They have as much to say about science as your local priest.
OMG, this takes the cake! Fire chiefs spoke! Imagine! They have as much to say about science as your local priest.
The first mass cull of feral camels in South Australia's remote north-west will start tomorrow, after dry conditions have seen the pest's numbers dramatically increase in the region as they seek water.
Key points:
The SA environment department estimates 10,000 camels are flocking to water sources APY Lands' Richard King said the camels destroy air conditioners to access moisture. Traditional owners previously mustered and sold the camels, but numbers are now too large
The population increase has resulted in significant damage to infrastructure and is a danger to families and communities in the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara (APY) Lands, according to the South Australian Department for Environment and Water (DEW).
DEW estimates 10,000 camels are flocking to water sources, including tanks, taps and any available water.
APY Lands manager Richard King said the camels had come right into communities looking for water.
... So far, your stance seems to be that future technology will solve all issues...
For once, you understood me correctly.
It’s not a question of religion, it’s a question of science. Whether we are in a Climate Crisis caused by human actions such as burning fossil fuels is a question for scientists to answer. And they have.
That's true. The scientists have provided answers - thousands of answers on thousands of climate related topics, and not all of the answers are consistent by any means.
The climate system is complex, chaotic and non-linear. Future unexpected, large and rapid climate system changes (as have occurred in the past) are, by their nature, difficult to predict. This implies that future climate changes may also involve ‘surprises'. In particular, these arise from the non-linear, chaotic nature of the climate system.
It is true. I said developed countries.That's crazy. China is a developed country. Economically its second in the world. I just bought a 4x5 camera from them. How many does Australia or the US make? IF you leave China out of the formula, you'll never get a handle on CO2. You'll be spitting into the wind.
We have a serious problem that is only going to escalate if we do nothing. California for example is doing its best but Trump is pulling out of international climate conventions and Morrison is using accounting trickery to pretend that Australia is doing anything at all. The problem was originally with developed countries and if we do not show leadership we cannot expect to persuade others.
So far, your stance seems to be that future technology will solve all issues...
That's crazy. China is a developed country. Economically its second in the world. I just bought a 4x5 camera from them. How many does Australia or the US make? IF you leave China out of the formula, you'll never get a handle on CO2. You'll be spitting into the wind.
I thought you wanted to buy Sony RX100 camera to lighten your load. Do Chinese make now tiny 4x5 cameras?I got a terrible case of GAS before my birthday and succumbed. I do already shoot medium format film with my Mamiya RB67. So first I bought a chimney viewfinder for it, a sports viewfinder and another light meter. They weren't enough. The GAS was eating at me. So I pulled the trigger. However, on the good side, the 4x5 weighs less than the Mamiya. The 4x5 lenses are lighter too. Plus, it's such a pretty camera -teak, black metal and carbon fiber. http://www.chamonixviewcamera.com/cameras/45h1
That's crazy. China is a developed country. Economically its second in the world. I just bought a 4x5 camera from them. How many does Australia or the US make? IF you leave China out of the formula, you'll never get a handle on CO2. You'll be spitting into the wind.
That's true. The scientists have provided answers - thousands of answers on thousands of climate related topics, and not all of the answers are consistent by any means.
The climate system is complex, chaotic and non-linear. Future unexpected, large and rapid climate system changes (as have occurred in the past) are, by their nature, difficult to predict. This implies that future climate changes may also involve ‘surprises'. In particular, these arise from the non-linear, chaotic nature of the climate system.
Didn't you know that? :(
I'm quoting from the IPCC.
China is not a developed country and is not generally recognised as such. While it is one of the largest economies in the world, it is close to world average in GDP per capita, $18,000 as compared to $63,000 for the US.
China obviously needs to be part of the solution but that does not give the federal governments of Australia and the US an excuse for effectively doing nothing. As I said "The problem was originally with developed countries and if we do not show leadership we cannot expect to persuade others." Also, while likely not enough, China has made significant commitments to action on climate change, unlike the US and Australia.
Like the Trump thread, this one has turned out useless too.Talk to the Chinese.
Entrenched ideas remain as they are; those who will not see remain blindly oblivious, and so it goes, just like religion, with no solution beyond bitterness and eventual mass killings, whether by food and water wars, fire, starvation or drowning.
So sad that some can't even agree that, right or wrong in the broader sense, it at least makes sense to try and stop what's happening or, at the very least, slow it down so we have another generation or two living the pre-apocalyptic life.
Doing any less than trying is the ultimate selfishness.
... it at least makes sense to try and stop what's happening or, at the very least, slow it down...
Fossil fuel industry giants such as ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell are maintaining an outsize presence at global climate discussions, working to undermine scientific consensus and slow policy progress, according to findings released last week by an environmental monitoring organization.
The Climate Investigations Center (CIC) report claims that fossil fuel trade associations have sent more than 6,400 delegates to climate talks since 1995, including delegates from Shell, BP and ExxonMobil.
Like what?...Try what exactly? Stop what exactly? Slow what exactly? And more importantly, how?...Idiots.
This Facebook post seems appropriate at this point:
The science has been clear for some time. Here are some quotes from six years ago.
“Asking if a weather event is ‘caused’ by climate change is the wrong question. All extreme weather events are now being influenced by climate change because they are occurring in a climate system that is hotter and moister than it was 50 years ago.”
The world's oceans hit their warmest level in recorded history in 2019, according to a study published Monday that provides more evidence that Earth is warming at an accelerated pace. The analysis, which also found that ocean temperatures in the last decade have been the warmest on record, shows the impact of human-caused warming on the planet's oceans and suggests that sea-level rise, ocean acidification and extreme weather events could worsen as the oceans continue to absorb so much heat.
"The pace of warming has increased about 500 percent since the late 1980s," said one of the study's authors, John Abraham, a professor of thermal sciences at the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota. "The findings, to be honest, were not unexpected. Warming is continuing, it has accelerated, and it is unabated. Unless we do something significant and quickly, it's really dire news."
Abraham and his colleagues found that the rate of ocean warming accelerated from 1987 to 2019 to nearly 4½ times the rate of warming from 1955 to 1986.
Yes. The science is very clear that the climate system is complex, chaotic and non-linear, which obviously makes predictions of future climate very unreliable.
Quote from: Ray on January 13, 2020, 07:41:54 pm
Yes. The science is very clear that the climate system is complex, chaotic and non-linear, which obviously makes predictions of future climate very unreliable.
Strange conclusion, and very unscientific. One of the goals of science is to create a better understanding of complex issues.
Yes. The science is very clear that the climate system is complex, chaotic and non-linear, which obviously makes predictions of future climate very unreliable.
How much should we spend to change the earth's climate assuming that's possible? Where will the resources come from? (The US is already running a trillion dollar annual deficit.) How much money won;t be available for cancer research, feeding the poor, housing the homeless, providing medical care for the sick, inventing new life saving pharmaceuticals? How many people who now have heating and other life's necessities will lose them or never obtain them if we outlaw fossil fuels? How will you accomplish anything when China and India who don;t have to comply and don;t comply with Paris accord standards are contributing 37% of the CO2? That's over a third of the total.Some measures may actually bring efficiencies. In any case the cost of doing nothing or even too little is likely to be greater than the cost of effective action.
You know, I;d like to have a chalet on the Riviera. But if I had one I couldn't afford to eat.
How much should we spend to change the earth's climate assuming that's possible? Where will the resources come from?
...we can confidently say thatTexas, Whateverville, over some longer period of time, will become warmer...
There is a lot of stupid art and bananas taped to the wall in various galleries purchased for millions of dollars. That money could be used more wisely for solar panels, cow fart bags or catching microplastics in the oceans.
Some measures may actually bring efficiencies. In any case the cost of doing nothing or even too little is likely to be greater than the cost of effective action.America is doing stuff already. Tesla sold Australia millions of dollars in batteries to backup electricity production there. Tesla also makes electric cars sold throughout the world and is building a 2 billion dollar plant in CHina for their consumption.. We're doing a lot of other stuff as well. But the kind of spending required to make a difference in the climate is huge. Without CHina and India, it's going nowheres.
The US has 17% of world population and 50% of world military expenditure. There must be scope for saving there.
... In any case the cost of doing nothing or even too little is likely to be greater than the cost of effective action...
So?
This is one of those cutesy sayings that make people saying them oh, so warm and feel so smart, yet totally meaningless in the real world.
This is one of those cutesy sayings that make people saying them oh, so warm and feel so smart, yet totally meaningless in the real world.
Virtually all human advancement contradicts your statement.
... That predictions of future climate are not very unreliable...
Right.
Polar caps already melted two years ago, Glacier National Park will this year, Maldives are already under water since 2018, etc.
Bart, These are definitely prettier than your other chart in Hawaii on the mountaintop showing the CO2 levels. :)
I agree, although the message is not pretty.I wish my investment chart looked like that.
And maybe you like this animated CO2 chart more than the more static one:
Time history of atmospheric CO2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2mZyCblxS4
You shouldn't be so gullible and believe such blog posts or sensational stories. Listen to what solid peer-reviewed scientific evidence tells us (and check who funded the research).
1. No scientific reports to support that notion. Prediction of ice-free arctic sea-areas during summers, yes, but that would grow back during winter.
The US military also made contingency plans for an ice-free northern passage during summers, are that's a wise thing to do.
2. No scientific report from a decade ago available.
3. No scientific reports that indicate the Maldives going under for quite a while. Summer storm floods with saltwater, yes, increasing salination of the islands' water due to rising water pressure from the sea, yes. But going under by 2018, no.
3.1 Maldives I: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41TCWEl-x_g
3.2 Maldives II: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aQqTFGxrmg
You shouldn't be so gullible and believe such blog posts or sensational stories...
There we agree. I didn't believe it then, don't believe it now. The world is not ending in 12 years, Miami won't be underwater in "a few years," the world is not on the brink of extinction, etc.Maybe it won't be your problem, but certainly that of all future generations if we do not act.
But apparently you believe that.
Maybe it won't be your problem, but certainly that of all future generations if we do not act.
The CO2-graphs show the simple result of man digging up carbon and burning it.
The forest fires in Austalia are a result and make the CO2 position worse ; The same happens in the USSR with the permafrost soils.
In that case the temperature increase make the soils unfrozen and they release methane, a much more powerfull greenhouse gas, making the situation worse again.
Maybe you do not agree that the climate change is man-made; but it is clearly happening and we have to do something about it.
Burning less carbon is a good start.
If the permafrost melts, think of all the new arable land that will be available for farming. Think of all the species that will be able to expand their populations into. Think of all the grasses that will "eat" the CO2.
Let's talk about benefits from warming. Climate change has winners as well as losers. History has shown that there are more winners than losers as the world has gotten warmer. Life is more abundant today than any time in the past since the last ice age for most species including man. A couple of extra degrees will make it even better. Sure, it may negatively affect 150 million people who live a low areas by the sea. By there's billions more that warmer weather will make it better for.
Think of all those cold Canadians who won;t have to flee to FLorida in the winter. :)
If the permafrost melts, think of all the new arable land that will be available for farming. ...No Alan, these will be muddy swamps with methane bubbling up.
Why were temperatures rising from the 1800s (actually even earlier) without significant increase in CO2 until well into the 20th Century? Why is warming less strong in the troposphere, which climate models predict is where we should mostly see it, & has changed little for some years despite continued increase in CO2? It appears that the equilibrium climate sensitivity (estimate of change in temp from doubling of emissions) is less than previously thought, based on newer methods based on data instead of simulations.
Apart from that, good soil takes a long time to generate by the cumulation of biological processes. There won't be any good soil under the permafrost.+1
... The greatest benefactors of warmest weather in the northern hemisphere are all kinds of insects. Personally, I saw in Ontario a great increase in japanese beetles, mosquitoes, and ticks....
- For example, they suffer Tourism and food production in the Mediterranean, if in 2050 the climatic conditions in Marseille resemble those of Algiers today. The drought period in the Mediterranean region then extends over an average of more than six months a year. The risk of crop failures is increasing worldwide. Additional storage is required to compensate for this, the report estimates the cost to be between five and eleven billion dollars a year.
- The danger from Cyclones and tidal waves could expose the value Florida Real Estate by 30 percent by 2050.
- The Warming the oceans could that fishing by eight percent by 2050 and affect the livelihoods of 650 to 800 million citizens worldwide.
- A quarter of the Top 100 Airports is less than ten meters above sea level and, according to the study, could be exposed to “serious dangers” from high tides and storms. In addition, around 185,000 passengers a year would not be able to fly until 2050 due to the heat.
There we agree. I didn't believe it then, don't believe it now. The world is not ending in 12 years, Miami won't be underwater in "a few years," the world is not on the brink of extinction, etc.
But apparently you believe that.
Most definitely, there has been a significant increase of both, ticks and lunatics.:)
It's fun to watch you use the most outlandish predictions from the fringe to sidetrack sensible discussion...
My wish is that the real world is not what we see every day on the interweb.
... I presume he's claiming that they don't work well...
In a recent speech, Trump spoke out against using more efficient home appliances, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/15/trump-rails-against-refrigerators-promises-cleaner-dishes-milwaukee-rally?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/15/trump-rails-against-refrigerators-promises-cleaner-dishes-milwaukee-rally?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other). I presume he's claiming that they don't work well.
Sometimes it feels as if we are in an episode of a Rod Serling program. What a pathetic spectacle this culture war is turning into. My wish is that the real world is not what we see every day on the interweb.
Maybe you do not agree that the climate change is man-made; but it is clearly happening and we have to do something about it.
Burning less carbon is a good start.
Yes. Climate change is happening. It always has and always will. That's the nature of climate.Actually changing the climate to save the Khmers might be easier than changing anyone's mind here. :)
We can argue endlessly about the contribution of anthropogenic CO2 emissions to such warming, and the contribution of deforestation and modern agriculture, which cannot be precisely quantified because of the complex, chaotic and non-linear nature of climate.
However, despite these uncertainties, it is clear that significant changes in climate have occurred in the past, with devastating consequences for civilizations in the region. A recent example is the collapse of the Khmer civilization in Cambodia during the 13th and 14th centuries, due to long periods of drought.
Does someone think that reducing CO2 levels would have prevented that Khmer civilization from collapsing? ;)
I presume he's claiming that they don't work well.
And he is, once again, absolutely right. Anyone who washes dishes in a dishwasher can certify that. Maybe in Canada you are luckier and do not have "environmentally-friendly" (not!) detergents.
Is your dishwasher not working the way it used to? Earlier this year, with little fanfare, detergent makers reworked their formulas.
This was supposed to be good for waterways. But it turned a simple chore into a frustrating mystery for many people across the country.
And he is, once again, absolutely right. Anyone who washes dishes in a dishwasher can certify that. Maybe in Canada you are luckier and do not have "environmentally-friendly" (not!) detergents.
How are we going to change the climate when people demand washers and dryers in their lives and we have billions of people who still wash clothes by hand? Reminds me when I was a kid. I grew up in The Bronx, lunatic congresswoman AOC's territory now. There were 2 or 3 washers in the basement of the apartment building serving 64 apartments. I was assigned the washer and had to take the wash down and argue for my next turn with other tenants. Then after doing all the washes bringing them up to the roof to hang them out to dry with clothespins on a clothesline because it was cheaper than using the drier. I guess we used the drier in the winter or if it rained. I don;t recall now. At least I got some sun when it was out.
Having these things in my home now are so convenient. They don't always clean things the way I like, but who's complaining too much? We really are spoiled.
OK who's the first here volunteering to give up their washer and dryer to save the earth?
The technology varied between Europe and America. When I was kid in the then communist country, our low-rise apartment building didn't have any elevators, but we had our own washer in the bathroom, which doubled as my dark room. As far as I remember, we didn't own a dryer. I am doing my bit in saving the earth. Although I own both washer and dryer, I don't use the dryer at all. In the summer, I string cloth lines in my backyard and in the winter in the basement. Most Cubans still hang out their laundry on the cloth lines.I too am doing my part to save the earth as I rarely do either the washing or drying. My wife is the polluter, not me. :)
... Most Cubans still hang out their laundry on the cloth lines.
Denying climate change is dangerous and unreasonable in the year 2020, according to billionaire Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.
Speaking at Amazon’s Smbhav summit for small and medium-sized enterprises in New Delhi, India, Bezos described climate change as a big problem and warned that Earth is “a finite planet.”
“You can go back 10 years or 20 years and there were people who just did not acknowledge that climate change is real,” he said. “Anybody today who is not acknowledging that climate change is real — that we humans are affecting this planet in a very significant and dangerous way — those people are not being reasonable.”
“We have sent robotic probes to every planet in the solar system — this is the good one,” he said. “There are no other good planets in this solar system. We have to take care of this one.”
So much for Alan's assertion that things will get better as the climate heats up.
Tell that to the estimated million common murres who died recently as a result of warming seas in the North Pacific.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51140869
..l Tell that to the estimated million common murres...
So how do you like your "low flush" toilet, Robert? Are you convinced that since you save water every time you flush it, flushing it three times to clear it saves a lot of water?
People used to make fun of "third world" dictators saying stupid shit. Now Trump makes some comments about laundry machines and all the fellow travellers jump on the bandwagon. All of a sudden dish and laundry machines don't work anymore. You guys don't need to feel that you have to agree with everything that comes out of that guy's mouth. No one will doubt your credentials, you know. No one will see it as treason, you can relax.
Tribal identification is a powerful force.
Not counting one billion dead animals in Australia fires due to a combination of very high temperatures and a record drought.
The first google find, from a loonie left-friendly source, NPR. This is an older article, but I learned about it from a recent one (can't find it right now) that had an update: that the replacement chemical is even worse for the environment.
https://www.npr.org/2010/12/15/132072122/it-s-not-your-fault-your-dishes-are-still-dirty
"Dishes Still Dirty? Blame Phosphate-Free Detergent"
Seventeen states banned phosphates from dishwasher detergents because the chemical compounds also pollute lakes, bays and streams. They create algae blooms and starve fish of oxygen.
But dirty and damaged dishes are turning many people into skeptics, including Wright.
"I'm angry at the people who decided that phosphate was growing algae. I'm not sure that I believe that," Wright adds.
Listen, guys. If your toilet isn't flushing properly, have it repaired or buy a better one. Stop blaming Obama. You sound like crazy people, seriously.
This is how Florida is preparing for the global warming and rising sea levels:
... Is there a chance that the poor old alligators from the swamps will be able to ape Australia's salt water variety of croc?
This is how Florida is preparing for the global warming and rising sea levels:After Hurricane Sandy that wiped out a lot of beach front homes here on the New Jersey shore, all new home are built on stilts and many existing homes have been lifted and placed on stilts. The bottom level is used for a garage only. So if you;re expecting a storm, you drive the hell away to higher ground until it's over.
The storm, which is expected to linger until Saturday, is expected to hit Newfoundland and Labrador the hardest, with the capital of St. John’s declaring a state of emergency. The scope of the storm can be seen in a photo captured by the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Further up the Atlantic coast, in Newfoundland, they are experiencing a record snow storm.
Epic storm with a snowfall up to 2 1/2 ft (75cm), 5 ft tall snowdrifts, 130km wind gusts, -45C (49F below) temperatures, and 30 ft high waves.
(https://www.ctvnews.ca/polopoly_fs/1.4772717!/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_620/image.jpg)
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/newfoundland-blizzard-as-seen-from-space-1.4772687
Only 20cm (8") expected for Toronto.
I jokingly asked a B&B proprietor in Victoria once if he owned a snow shovel and he just looked at me blankly and said no.
I spent four years attending undergraduate college in New Hampshire, and got my fill of snow. (The skiers loved it, of course.) Since then, I've gravitated toward warmer climes. Still, nature can pitch you an occasional curve ball.
I was once in Vancouver when it snowed. For all of about ... let's say ... 30 minutes, light flakes fell along the waterfront. We tourists took it in stride, but the locals seemed mesmerized by their winter wonderland. Then the precipitation turned to (very cold) rain. We tourists were really miserable, but the locals took it in stride. Then the sun came out. Fin de "storm."
One morning in Santa Fe, New Mexico, my wife and I woke up to discover two inches of snow covering the outdoor wooden stairs leading down from our second-story (storey) extended-stay hotel suite. I grabbed a plastic coat hanger from the closet, and used it to clear them before we walked down to go to the main building for breakfast. By the time we had finished eating, the snow was gone, the sun was shining, and the outdoor temperatures demanded nothing more than a light jacket. By lunchtime, even that was too much.
Here in the Washington, D.C. area, we're more-or-less accustomed to snow. We get some every winter, and occasionally we experience a real deluge (https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/02/05/remembering-s-snowmageddon-images-scenes/). Doesn't seem to make any difference: whenever it snows, our traffic―already notoriously awful―typically grinds to a halt. Some would consider that an appropriate metaphor for our politics.
SPAIN has been hit by a freak snow blizzard that is expected to last until tomorrow (Tuesday), in what could be the “most intense” snowfall to strike the country on record.
The unusual weather has triggered a terrifying and rare red weather alert in Spain, amid warnings for snow, freezing temperatures, rain and high winds. Storm Gloria will continue throughout today, Monday, and tomorrow leaving strong winds and rain throughout the peninsula, with special strength in the Mediterranean arc.
Storm Gloria continues to rip through Spain leaving a trail of destruction in its wake and has already claimed it’s first mortal victim. The accident took place on the Asturian side of the Puerto de San Isidro (León), when a 44-year-old man was run over by a vehicle while putting snow chains on his car.
Absolutely, Bart. We're all gonna die!In Florida, mainly in the low lying areas.
The flooding here and elsewhere is happening during so-called "king tides." Those are times, mostly in the fall, when the moon's gravitational pull means tides are higher than usual.
"It's kind of tough to go out and walk your dog unless you have hip boots on," he says. "There [are] people that are going to work that won't drive their vehicles through here. And they park up to the grocery store on U.S. 1 and they'll walk up."
Absolutely, Bart. We're all gonna die!
Nuccitelli et al. (2014) rebuts the argument that global warming is due to chlorofluorocarbon rather than carbon emissions
There are some connections between the two phenomena.
For example, the CFCs that destroy ozone are also potent greenhouse gases, though they are present in such small concentrations in the atmosphere (several hundred parts per trillion, compared to several hundred parts per million for carbon dioxide) that they are considered a minor player in greenhouse warming. CFCs account for about 13% of the total energy absorbed by human-produced greenhouse gases.
Global warming can't be blamed on CFCs – another one bites the dustBart you're cherry picking again. The original article didn't say global warming was all due to the CFCs. Only a third. Of course that's a lot. Let's tell the truth please. Also the fact that there is less CFCs than CO2 doesn't address the fact that CFCs are hundreds of times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/apr/18/global-warming-carbon-not-cfcs
Are the ozone hole and global warming related?
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/are-the-ozone-hole-and-global-warming-related/
Also loss of ozone layer caused by cfc contributes in a major way from the extra radiation of the sun. What other factors have scientists missed about global warming?
What if wer found another factor so far unknown to scientists currently that makes CO2 a minor component of the problem?
https://thecorrespondent.com/6285/shell-made-a-film-about-climate-change-in-1991-then-neglected-to-heed-its-own-warning/692663565-875331f6
Confidential documents show that Shell sounded the alarm about global warming as early as 1986. But despite this clear-eyed view of the risks, the oil giant has lobbied against strong climate legislation for decades. Today we make Shell’s 1991 film, Climate of Concern, public again.
That would create a challenge to explain away the measurable effect that CO2 has.
I've come across this in a Facebook post. Do not know the source, nor i can vouch for its authenticity.Slobo that's a great chart. What if the Gulf Stream shut down again? Europe would enter another ice period. Looks like it been cooling down overall since the Roman period.
... And in Davos, Mr T says "I believe in the environment..." Unfortunately, he doesn't believe in the evidence of his own eyes...
Today, at Porto Colom in "sunny" Mallorca: 40m waves...
That seems impossible. I assume you meant 4m? The weather prognosis for eastern Spain calls for 6-8m possible waves.
Nope, I mean 40metres; try to catch one of the Spanish national tv stations tonight. I think it also appeared on france24.com but most of that news was consumed by Davos.
Here we go:
https://www.diariodemallorca.es/multimedia/videos/mallorca/2020-01-21-193134-borrasca-gloria-video-temporal-provoca-olas-gigantes-portocolom.html
http://www.rtve.es/alacarta/videos/telediario/telediario-21-horas-21-01-20/5489266/
...Science has been warning of unpredictable changes...
Global warming (Centigrades):
That’s what we’ve been saying all this time. Mother Nature being Mother Nature. Thanks for confirming.
And yet, even when we can’t predict sh”t, we are supposed to kill growth and return to the Stone Age, hunting our lunch with a bow and arrow!?
Extreme growth!?Extreme growth of corn would be beneficial, but extreme growth of production of plastic straws and polyethelene shopping bags not.
Extreme growth of corn would be beneficial, but extreme growth of production of plastic straws and polyethelene shopping bags not.Actually extreme growth of corn is the problem the others are just the result. Farming has allowed huge population explosions that has led to the impact on the environment. In any case the environment won't be finally impacted because the population will level off. We're already seeing that and countries in Europe and elsewhere as the issues of modern living have limited the number of children people are having. So it's all self-correcting.
... the population will level off. We're already seeing that and countries in Europe and elsewhere as the issues of modern living have limited the number of children people are having...
Which means the end of the Western Civilization and the victory for the barbarians. Just like the Roman Empire.
we are supposed to kill growth and return to the Stone Age, hunting our lunch with a bow and arrow!?
Rob, Western societies are all already way bellow the replacement rate, which is 2.1 per woman.
This is new territory.
Regarding the storm of a day or two ago here in the western Med: I wandered down to the sea today, and I counted twenty-four yachts that had broken from their anchorages in the bay and had hit the shore and one another. I am told that a further six sank at their mooring. I have only ever seen one boat at a time in that condition on the rare winter's day. This is new territory.
Rob, Western societies are all already way bellow the replacement rate, which is 2.1 per woman.China has a more severe problem. But in the end will have the same reduction of population that will help the environment. The issue of population causing climate change, if true, will end naturally.
... This is new territory...
... In the distant past, extreme weather events were attributed to a particular God. Now they are attributed to rising CO2 levels. It's just another religion...
Exactly. Science as the new religion. People have that insatiable urge to explain things they don’t understand. One way or another.
People have that insatiable urge to explain things they don’t understand. One way or another.
While we're on the subject of God, there's no conflict either with being observant and being a good steward of the environment. In fact, the bible commands it even requiring beasts of burden to have the day off on the sabbath. God, man and beasts all rest together. Also, God doesn;t want us to schmutz up His creation. But He also gives us the earth to be used. We have to find a balance. Sometimes were at odds what that balance is as it seems currently regarding climate change. But we're all in His hands as well. So maybe a little trust that all will work out regardless would be a nice thing to consider. .
The Great Spirit teachings of the native Indians were to preserve and promote the beauty of the Nature.
The contemporary evangelical interpreters of God today promote greed, money, wars, and anti-abortion movements.
And yet the latter defeated the former.
The Great Spirit teachings of the native Indians were to preserve and promote the beauty of the Nature.Well, man has always used religion to his own selfish desires. It's not just a contemporary issue. But that's not God's fault. He's given man a choice of doing good or evil. It's up to us. There are many more who have used religion for good purposes. It's given our basis for legal living and moral thought from not killing to not stealing and finding a purpose in life beyond the mundane. Let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.
The contemporary evangelical interpreters of God today promote greed, money, wars, and anti-abortion movements.
No president has done more for the environment as Trump...The law affect small waterways and small private areas that in the past have prevented small owners from developing their plots of land. What was going on that if it rained hard and your land had a little wetland look, you came under rather heavy handed laws that were originally intended for actual wetlands. You couldn't build a cabin on n your property or farm it. There was no sensible balance. Small nails were getting hit with huge sledgehammers. The new regulation adds some balance into the regulation. It does not allow people to spill chemicals and pollute. That's fake news by the liberal press their typical method of stirring up the masses and forcing us to shoot ourselves in the foot.
so now
Trump rolls back US water pollution controls
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-51225604
The US has become just too clean...
The law affect small waterways and small private areas that in the past have prevented small owners from developing their plots of land. What was going on that if it rained hard and your land had a little wetland look, you came under rather heavy handed laws that were originally intended for actual wetlands. You couldn't build a cabin on n your property or farm it. There was no sensible balance. Small nails were getting hit with huge sledgehammers. The new regulation adds some balance into the regulation. It does not allow people to spill chemicals and pollute. That's fake news by the liberal press their typical method of stirring up the masses and forcing us to shoot ourselves in the foot.From the story you linked to:
From the story you linked to:Fake news by the liberal BBC.
"Under the new regulations, landowners and property developers will be able to pour pesticides, fertilizers and other pollutants directly into millions of miles of the nation's waterways for the first time in decades."
Fake news by the liberal BBC.You are quoting the New York Times in support of your position? I thought they were the epitome of fake news. But if they are good enough for you, here's a NYT quote:
It mainly affects small streams that do not extend beyond the state lines which will be under the control and regulation of each individual states Pollution Control. Also note Obama pt these mainly into effect in 2015 a year before h.w Leahy office. So it's not some old law. Here's an excerpt from The New York Times.
"The new rule, written by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers, will retain federal protections of large bodies of water, as well as larger rivers and streams that flow into them and wetlands that lie adjacent to them. But it removes protections for many other waters, including wetlands that are not adjacent to large bodies of water, some seasonal streams that flow for only a portion of the year, “ephemeral” streams that only flow after rainstorms, and water that temporarily flows through underground passages."
I would trust the BBC before I would any private news outlet....
You are quoting the New York Times in support of your position? I thought they were the epitome of fake news. But if they are good enough for you, here's a NYT quote:You're right that the NY Times is no friend of mine. Where they've gone off the rails is by not acknowledging that States have their own regulations regarding pollution. The used hot words like "dumping" when the real word is "using". Farmers use pesticides and fertilizers all the time. But they don't dump them in waterways or are they allowed too. That's just a lot of rhetoric. The waterways they;re referring to are not interstate and not end up in those waterways. The State's control those and write their own laws. It's not the Federal government's business. We are a federal government.
"The new water rule for the first time in decades allow landowners and property developers to dump pollutants such as pesticides and fertilizers directly into hundreds of thousands of waterways, and to destroy or fill in wetlands for construction projects."
You're right that the NY Times is no friend of mine.Then why do you link to them to support your position?
Then why do you link to them to support your position?
You have to understand the NY Times. They'll bias the article by putting it above the fold on page one or buried on page 37 depending on its political impact for what they favor. rR they'll write the headline in a way the biases the information. But then they''ll often include both the good stuff and bad stuff within the article. That way they can say they covered all the facts about the situation. They're bistable. Psychotic. They have to tell the truth but then they have to present it in a way that makes the point they're trying to get across. Less sophisticated media just leave out the stuff that doesn;t support their viewpoint.What a crock. You just say the stuff you like is true and the stuff you don't like is fake, even within the same article. What a fantasy land you have created for yourself.
What a crock. You just say the stuff you like is true and the stuff you don't like is fake, even within the same article.
Это правда.You mixed up the BBC with Trump i believe...
What a crock. You just say the stuff you like is true and the stuff you don't like is fake, even within the same article. What a fantasy land you have created for yourself.The article implies he's poisoning the entire country's rivers. But it's text subsidies that the change is only for minor streams and parcels. I try to apply discernment to aust I'm reading.
... You just say the stuff you like is true and the stuff you don't like is fake, even within the same article...
Precisely because it is within the same article.
If you ask Goebbels, he would tell you the best propaganda is the one composed of truth, semi-truths, and lies.
Bjørn Lomborg (https://www.facebook.com/bjornlomborg/?__tn__=kC-R&eid=ARBQWYAtsHbfebBQdxTRBcyBp6FT4OC3K_X-KMJdGbQ_yP-gF4UgXoSnydifl2OvFG3bvyrDB456Uaxr&hc_ref=ARRA6xoJJuZ-dqXuNnYJO645qT9VP1pmIS_cPvXAZY6u4YUCX1wq6zRjZNBzYyR4rl8&fref=nf&__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARAR11O5vjvA3RElrYxBhOmow1fm07WurmTVWb6Mu_HNOzlGAeQBfSsxlywpt79aoGsvRSdXDVJByVwHojhlF3uiZk8TJ5pJ8z1yg7tdOXY8-q7PIEH7wphFbwDWzlSmCEbPHwgF5T2fI3Pm7V_qkVKUt8qmiU8ydFleJMJMt6OpXq4Coh3w52rWXoApcCYPSl4W5Q3YmB1Y0hwRq9BTBgYu6hgmsg1nsKzJTB5LAbKe7rvkDacHm98CQjmkFsY0pdsGc9cLZ1aoPXY-cX7V61dMgmRHaoUs74Jyt_UtFFFVhPPJDlvv2koC3e9c7xvlmFjR320wvqiKefAavj0s)
January 19 at 2:17 P (https://www.facebook.com/bjornlomborg/photos/a.221758208967/10158666710443968/?type=3&__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARAR11O5vjvA3RElrYxBhOmow1fm07WurmTVWb6Mu_HNOzlGAeQBfSsxlywpt79aoGsvRSdXDVJByVwHojhlF3uiZk8TJ5pJ8z1yg7tdOXY8-q7PIEH7wphFbwDWzlSmCEbPHwgF5T2fI3Pm7V_qkVKUt8qmiU8ydFleJMJMt6OpXq4Coh3w52rWXoApcCYPSl4W5Q3YmB1Y0hwRq9BTBgYu6hgmsg1nsKzJTB5LAbKe7rvkDacHm98CQjmkFsY0pdsGc9cLZ1aoPXY-cX7V61dMgmRHaoUs74Jyt_UtFFFVhPPJDlvv2koC3e9c7xvlmFjR320wvqiKefAavj0s&__tn__=-R)M
The Australian wildfires are tragic.
But exploiting them for 'proving' climate change is confirmation bias.
In much of the conversation, there is some true points and a lot of misdirection.
Yes, the fires this year have been *much* larger in the temperate forests of New South Wales (home of Sydney) and Victoria (Melbourne).
But the climate models predict not just temperate forests to see their burnt area increase. They predict almost *all* biomes to see their burnt area increase.
So, if people *only* look at temperate forests this year, show that they burnt more and conclude ‘see, climate change’ it is confirmation bias.
You can’t take a result *after* it has happened and decide only to test the part that fits your theory.
Global warming should increase *all* burnt area in Australia, and it should increase burnt area in Australia minus NT (avoiding a lot of the tropical savanna) even more.
The fact that burnt area for both Australia and Australia minus NT has declined is inconvenient for the claim that global warming increases burnt area.
Here I show the likely *annual* burnt area for all of Australia. Of course, the current fire season is not over, but we can reasonably predict the total burnt area by looking at the proportion of burnt area in the historical record. It turns out that comparing the full season with how much had burnt by January 1, the full season was 119.5% higher.
The Guardian newspaper has been providing the running total amount of burnt area in this fire season (running from June 2019-May 2020, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/…/List_of_Australian_bushfire_seas… (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Australian_bushfire_seasons?fbclid=IwAR2UyyF8h_zkXBPrIkuu4c739MeLa1QUro-SwzmO5yv8K2wWQflNZS1_0MY)). They find the total area burnt for Australia minus Northern Territory is 10.7 million hectares to January 6, 2020. In personal communication, they have told me the NT burnt area is 13.3 million hectares (and that this might be for all of 2019, so possibly too large — but here we'll just use this data point).[/font]
The total burnt area is therefore 24 million hectares from June 2019 to about January 6 2020. That means the likely total for the whole fire season June 1, 2019, to May 31, 2020, is 119.5% of that or 28.6 million hectares.
Now, we can get slightly more updated satellite data, because we can get annual data from GFED (1997-2016) and GWIS (2001-18) They splice nicely.
The data shows two things.
First, climate models would expect the burnt area of Australia to be increasing. It is not.
Second, the current Australian fire season is in terms of area burnt not unprecedented compared to the recent past.
Data: For this fire season from https://www.theguardian.com/ (https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2F%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR1agjkq0YTsmhzK1o2wzD5rUpF77c15EwuvrHmuzcclULeIwaRXxgvupcg&h=AT3KJ_ACE9QAeMSfTjq60pa_bJJw73SwndvRlqc8qbvsJ2x2eaZ4kKks8fgPu_fJ7O4l6nI_qu7FmfSOUEUxPz4_-wqf77eXiPDJpSNugJoPDzc0g_KCXveAvFWJ76L6qWQ5WPiGg1jjZb-hQMe5Ja7uZeDQTBeT68qNwhD9pZfpZ5LLBi3RenRKnkQ3ti3G_Dtbadbh4BNK07TIaNAlC42y8jcvdHot4Ss4Drm5ux0mLkJ6vASpxJUDMoemplYrIjLKwhWNZBbhwrODTcwwZUfC7XyHLvIMn-yKG3RdDvBD0HaIXcoWyOSt4onOK_2VW8oDrMmYv2gzR6SX3janyn_C4d_nBouPf_00-lSHAW8rcgYW7DDSZKnwTa5cKi2tHRbyGpHF7QOmTzzXKZtrVYTpE31PLwNqwjd7TdhRhTL_eweQTo8i12Ez_VbLyyKuFc2M9LSi0c36BfqOWlFLvOf-xr83qhd5Qh8JkhCBkjQfbtSdkqUN43vkYknnBBE1ry8nojtff9NfMyJaTat5doKBdX0H3LzZ7_pNboAPFKKR48MfchieU5XhYIbQCDxNPqou9YHghKIWnw6iy8oZGEiwm_FRMkdvmedyUJo2dBRB92JScB5ZiFLMD1grEw)…/how-big-are-the-fires-burning…
For 1997-2016 from http://www.globalfiredata.org/analysis.html (http://www.globalfiredata.org/analysis.html?fbclid=IwAR3mwNpSuHtoVapykrNZS-WkgeoDrQvj6qiF3D91PJnYPsqg4XJs8bMjJ4c)[/font],
For 2001-18: https://gwis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/…/g…/countries-estimates/OC/AU (https://gwis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/static/gwis.statistics.portal/countries-estimates/OC/AU?fbclid=IwAR2oexQdTGN7PVmNVVk7DbFeTWqZbif2pIByrD18f7ZbPcu_xj2Nw63OBis)[/font][/font]
NSW 4.9 million hectares: https://www.theguardian.com/ (https://www.theguardian.com/?fbclid=IwAR2eJ4dNrZXE83RPYwvdGMqBG85AchaisJZSBNoq1ZXwXG_Sr-Jj3AZSwqQ)…/record-breaking-49m-hectares-…
Similar sized fires: https://www.dfes.wa.gov.au/ (https://www.dfes.wa.gov.au/?fbclid=IwAR2bRFInNp9TLQS5iY7BAQXKckmog47Z4-if6vqAwHbZIkA4b8wWawRbnbk)[/font]…/FESA_Report-NationalInquiryonB…[/font]
Victoria: https://twitter.com/m_parrington/status/1214562153769734144 (https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fm_parrington%2Fstatus%2F1214562153769734144%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR19g_vCB9jlxZhMezr2fgwU7PyxEgxpZyPoGq1ZUFzZNw7au88qj_Z1gJY&h=AT0cQatEqHWujmjatvDFIDqPVy9c472NQvMsuuH9vfMG1ZQhtu8eKccSq7fW5PI2ggom_CPSGUSwzSzUhpn7RFOQuL1Sjqb2WDfSYdjlDHSXb5tVltvL7yY6vDBW0iqeLadpqIe2y0fxAyD1d-uLyMLxLPiUtZs081jpoyjWT-boVRwgKOUAgZRyFCLyhSqCAuJUP-ZLEBgSqSOurco4tONR5_zLu-spLcT6gOqWoLEigW63GljRIHECcYjOIhD3Jr4VVQLrFsU2E5X7dXKDv7-5Io2eEcI-VUtVZN6uxTu-mhkSpiaD4lcxWTsqnPYXMHBA4uTMeePMzFheRKsydYmKXw-fc-9GQ_WRNXsza6g_V_NivBE6kkh-ChNk-Ug_oP3GKrIyQYXGGi9XGTCw12OHMT3prPThlGwgEVQPTc9JrqwdkaF8ud99v4zbG2z61F_AdwTEZpCnF3czNHoeLsLFzzU_OC3nSqIxt7BQBSVTEKwB66WtOt-tIa31iLzht9hklMIGUwzoj8g4Dd1LKLWo7WyaLLqWWWPfhOskc45RAr-Q0fpZHST57pAYWdgQJGigtWjeKKdwM4hst6nRobP5SlCM05sQstHe0RlInTOqM1MlPF9_5HgbMyEqcg)
5 million hectares from https://www.dfes.wa.gov.au/ (https://www.dfes.wa.gov.au/?fbclid=IwAR0cvZuXmPzIxwM5UMvCJ20QzHplloX7iJrrJAV9BeyKN3qRFWZx_AhNbbg)[/font]…/FESA_Report-NationalInquiryonB…[/font]
Global lower burnt area: (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ (https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fagupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com%2F%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR0vwL3ZFfXPA2FB4HVMALkeivzg2xQdcbd4aAhRqG4U808jEfMIM3n3gPw&h=AT0E85pj3tWN6DwW6WVTHwA6IxYA_SI77LjbjcuTF3HqKEq5JVmN7SucYVZA3cjLbREP0VRtQshEcceNbOcGpVNcL59xhax8bHITYbP4gIcXrux84hjARrUGaORdSL67cnvG9vGi51NjKNmxZqIslOYwfA9kbwi6ah-iL9dwW7DmFsB3itliZguroe5xSpBC8Z8_hq2JqO4BVFoeLFmyT0NNchC2BYlQTQplkpSMPO2vsmUzF2vINJ0VG6j77w8cCTsJJuMuCO4CvZnoml2EWQYzsD_-HCl7fwAUMIuwMOeOuvQwybTpzh3hBpmozfDXqe7FoTLWtfsrpWcyBV9_dsNNahpfHNVNOEYihe50k-RyUq_okf81v3_oEXhfYq21iONHLxoRi3o-sN3I4e7lfQsJiHRovjEMDuJYjTdFeb5Yd-r5QnfDj-Uql-AkDhyxJ6SkpMTpy2UL6zDHVY4ou8OWT44TCcts18rPe1c5tZ1FVsqzwihHcxUmlTvcUC6fH1d8vMHIz_ZCaerUHORPqDlf-RutQzmAmC2snCAFCn7k6iUU9qwaBjWdRTmdqGIeOQwjGf2Prc_PIHgcRTAwHDBzTcsxiMI5Kad3WrRNcLfXPACttDDAEoh_WgCqgA)…/10.1…/2013JG002532)[/font]
Climate models expect increasing burnt area for Australia: https://iopscience.iop.org/artic…/10.1088/1748-9326/…/104015 (https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fiopscience.iop.org%2Farticle%2F10.1088%2F1748-9326%2F9%2F10%2F104015%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR0xXrkysuiiI6672OullyThfex6AAvrXsv32NdY18sLN1vRkj5LhxoOM6E&h=AT2uBhsFHkRvA3vGWk8_rF8JY1WoL5E9aWYeo6oQsEJ-PkWtrfL53ACEZqgJru3ugKl-mIe1Wsr-zkwNDQSF2pj2a6dPyF-4r24-5UzjakgeYNhcIN11qORQQ1y9irIvTflA2NQE5gkV9fRn-HOfNze7JqbzPTGvFvi-ZVcAZ4Vax5jYAaMXmFqrG9sHllmR4Ti55WE78pzAjdlnGSvCEwTmih7xsZV857mEet3H2EKbv0ITzbJc7_zLXXE1icRqzJMxBwdHsHCysjHhsJ7drcbzp_e24yz6TtJqnj8mxZsdgZmxDNKcdl0E_y1J1ps09qxoRlqks9z5MRgs-63pUKI6Cse1M8vaH-Vu2-PbDAkX1-2FcuhqnUYvUI49lZF-lzocwb5QqTnfZfJxtlye6q-glHNocDnqH8KGI1ArS3LdLBJ8FnvwV82qANczl0iGGq60X4swdwSHytS-o7TjwRgMBcEBK8HYXxv7VaJk-FjooBLUHs4IaP1VZP7J5V-w5uSYMMlBJUx_GIrJVfraR1uMdqHnfJcpGvGgVZ7LCwOBiuWqlHSGCtH7y2XDsxk9iXdXnznOb_rbG8EYaNo2Goo7Lb_9WPVJtoS2f_t2Y3wfkQGOrcOnXlt-qGbcFg).. The climate model predicts not just temperate forests to see their burnt area increase (0.28%), but almost all other types of areas, too. And these areas are expected to increase *more*. So burnt area of grass & scrublands will increase by about 1.1%, burnt area of tropical forests 2.5% and sclerophyll woodland 3.3%. The only land type that should experience decreasing burnt area is tropical savanna (in Northern Territory and northern Queensland) by 4.2%.
Who needs Paris?
You do. Ever been there? The City of Light.Building electric cars doesn't create electricity. It needs electricity, likely from fossil fuels.
Kudos to GM for seeing the light. Sustainable energy will create zillions of high paying quality jobs. Better, even, than coal mining.
"Much of southern Ontario has seen 150 to just over 200 percent of the normal or average precipitation for the month of January," Sonnenburg adds. "But with the warmer temperatures, a lot of that precipitation has fallen as rain."
Currently, this is Toronto's second rainiest January on record with 105.6 mm of rain reported so far. Total precipitation for the month as of January 26 is sitting at 130.6 mm.
STAYING MILD AND ABOVE SEASONAL INTO EARLY FEBRUARY
"The first few days of February will bring a continuation of what we have seen during January -- changeable weather," says meteorologist Dr. Doug Gillham. "But overall above seasonal temperatures are expected to dominate, though the pattern looks to be much more active and unsettled than how we are ending January this week."
Building electric cars doesn't create electricity. It needs electricity, likely from fossil fuels.
Building electric cars doesn't create electricity. It needs electricity, likely from fossil fuels.
... “We did a lot of thorough testing with our computers...
;D ;D ;D
27/01/2020 - Climate costs are likely smallest if global warming is limited to 2 degrees Celsius. The politically negotiated Paris Agreement is thus also the economically sensible one, Potsdam researchers find in a new study. Using computer simulations of a model by US Nobel Laureate William Nordhaus, they weight climate damages from, for instance, increasing weather extremes or decreasing labour productivity against the costs of cutting greenhouse gas emission by phasing out coal and oil. Interestingly, the economically most cost-efficient level of global warming turns out to be the one more than 190 nations signed as the Paris Climate Agreement. So far however, CO2 reductions promised by nations worldwide are insufficient to reach this goal.
I wrote this in an essay (http://www.russ-lewis.com/essays/commoncause.html)in 1980, Bart. Nothing has changed since then:[...]
WASHINGTON — The Yale economist William D. Nordhaus has spent the better part of four decades trying to persuade governments to address climate change, preferably by imposing a tax on carbon emissions.
His careful work has long since convinced most members of his own profession, and on Monday he was awarded the 2018 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in recognition of that achievement.
But Professor Nordhaus sadly noted that he hadn’t convinced the government of his own country.
“The policies are lagging very, very far — miles, miles, miles behind the science and what needs to be done,” Professor Nordhaus said shortly after learning of the prize. “It’s hard to be optimistic. And we’re actually going backward in the United States with the disastrous policies of the Trump administration.”
Professor Nordhaus shared the prize with Paul M. Romer, an economist at New York University whose work has demonstrated that government policy plays a critical role in fostering technological innovation.
The award was announced just hours after a United Nations panel said large changes in public policy were urgently needed to limit the catastrophic consequences of rising temperatures. The prize committee said its choice of laureates was meant to emphasize the need for international cooperation.
“The message is that it’s needed for countries to cooperate globally to solve some of these big questions,” said Goran K. Hansson, the secretary general of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
Professor Romer, for his part, offered a more optimistic take on the challenges confronting society, saying that his work showed that governments could drive technological change. He noted the success of efforts to reduce emissions of ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons in the 1990s.
“One problem today is that people think protecting the environment will be so costly and so hard that they want to ignore the problem and pretend it doesn’t exist,” Professor Romer said at a news conference after the announcement. “Humans are capable of amazing accomplishments if we set our minds to it.”
GIGO=Garbage in. Garbage out.
GIGO=Garbage in. Garbage out."It was popular in the early days of computing, but applies even more today, when powerful computers can produce large amounts of erroneous data or information in a short time. The first use of the phrase has been dated to a November 10, 1957, syndicated newspaper article about US Army mathematicians and their work with early computers,[4] in which an Army Specialist named William D. Mellin explained that computers cannot think for themselves, and that "sloppily programmed" inputs inevitably lead to incorrect outputs. The underlying principle was noted by the inventor of the first programmable computing device design:
... What ARE you people afraid of?
Models don't have to be perfect to be useful.There are more things wrong today because there are more people inputting data and having opinions about things that they can spread around on the web. So it's actually harder to distinguish truth from BS. That's what so scary about AI. All it is is people imputed data and algorithms using their own flaws and prejudice that slants the results. It's one of the concerns about climatology. But it really extends to all social and hard sciences, economics, politics, etc. You can;t trust anything you read today and have to be very discerning about trying to extract the truth.
The argument that because things have been wrong in the past means that they are wrong now is specious.
What ARE you people afraid of?
That you are going to f&*ck up our way of life for your crazy delusions. We are afraid of your totalitarianism that inevitably follows any left rule.
There are more things wrong today because there are more people inputting data and having opinions about things that they can spread around on the web. So it's actually harder to distinguish truth from BS. That's what so scary about AI. All it is is people imputed data and algorithms using their own flaws and prejudice that slants the results. It's one of the concerns about climatology. But it really extends to all social and hard sciences, economics, politics, etc. You can;t trust anything you read today and have to be very discerning about trying to extract the truth.
"It was popular in the early days of computing, but applies even more today, when powerful computers can produce large amounts of erroneous data or information in a short time. The first use of the phrase has been dated to a November 10, 1957, syndicated newspaper article about US Army mathematicians and their work with early computers,[4] in which an Army Specialist named William D. Mellin explained that computers cannot think for themselves, and that "sloppily programmed" inputs inevitably lead to incorrect outputs. The underlying principle was noted by the inventor of the first programmable computing device design:
On two occasions I have been asked, "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question.
— Charles Babbage, Passages from the Life of a Philosopher[5]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_in,_garbage_out
Russ, may I suggest to read up on modern technology? A lot has changed since then.
The models used now, were not available then. The amount and quality of input data has improved, since then.
... There should be MORE trust in science, than ever before...
Relax, that sounds frantic. You're letting ideology rule your thinking, much like all those "student radicals" do.
Every environmental policy in the last 50 years has improved our lives. It has nothing to do with totalitarianism, you just insist on seeing everything through the same lens. It's a bizarre notion, that designing systems that conserve resources are viewed as "left-wing rule" on your part. Time for you to step back and re-analyze. Most of the corporate world started doing exactly that several decades ago. You're stuck in a meme.
Nobody is destroying your way of life. If anything, the rest of the world is rushing to adopt it, with occasional hiccups along the way as per normal.
There are moves in the coal belt to prevent agencies from collecting disease data. From the rantings on these threads, it sounds like many people want to stop climate modelling, presumably because it doesn't produce the results they favour. Do you really think that kind of strategy can work? Don't you think that people will notice that strip coal mining produces air pollutants than make people sick? Do you think that making it more difficult for people to sue when they get sick is actually a good thing for society?
Just because people you don't like who supports a policy does not make the policy bad. You're not thinking straight.
Nobody is destroying your way of life. If anything, the rest of the world is rushing to adopt it, with occasional hiccups along the way as per normal.
Actually, there is MORE need for scepticism about "science" than ever before, for two reasons. Reason #1 is well explained by Alan K. (in short, everybody is a scientist these days, just like photographers, and their instantaneous reach to the public via mass media and Internet is nothing short of dangerous).
Reason #2 is that, with the waning influence of organized religion, people are turning to science as the new religion.
waning influence of organized religionI see an strong uprising Christian religious Amerika at the moment influenced by Pence and Pompeo from their believe and Trump because he thinks it will get him more votes.
... I see an strong uprising Christian religious Amerika at the moment..
Which suggests that the evangelicals might have too much influence in political and judicial matters. Practice whatever religion they like, but why do they assume they have the right to tell others what to do. So much for "freedom".
Maybe the next time some goofball like Pat Robertson calls New Orleans hurricanes the wages of sin or openly worries about gay penguins (because two male penguins in a zoo somewhere adopted the caretaking of an egg) some politician with cojones will tell the old moron to shut the eff up.
Which suggests that the evangelicals might have too much influence in political and judicial matters. Practice whatever religion they like, but why do they assume they have the right to tell others what to do. So much for "freedom".
Maybe the next time some goofball like Pat Robertson calls New Orleans hurricanes the wages of sin or openly worries about gay penguins (because two male penguins in a zoo somewhere adopted the caretaking of an egg) some politician with cojones will tell the old moron to shut the eff up.
As a basis for clean and friendly coexistence between people, the general sense of the Commandments is pretty sound; it's when taken to simplistic, rigidly held belief and interpretation that trouble starts and destroys the good that comes from the basic concept.
It's often difficult, but you have to think for yourself.Surprisingly, little of that goes on.
Glaciologists have described Thwaites as the "most important" glacier in the world, the "riskiest" glacier, even the "doomsday" glacier.
It is massive - roughly the size of Britain.
It already accounts for 4% of world sea level rise each year - a huge figure for a single glacier - and satellite data show that it is melting increasingly rapidly.
There is enough water locked up in it to raise world sea level by more than half a metre.
We'd better all run for the hills, Les.
To gather all the necessary data the MELT team, which included scientists from Georgia Tech, developed Icefin, an underwater robot to navigate the waters underneath the glacier and to collect data in the area where the glacier meets the sea.
Using a hot-water drill, the MELT team was able to drill nearly half a mile or through 2,300 feet of ice to get to the ocean and seafloor. The Icefin was then able to swim more than a mile to the Thwaites grounding zone to gather data including measurements and images. The robot also mapped the glacier's melting.
“We designed Icefin to be able to finally enable access to grounding zones of glaciers, places where observations have been nearly impossible, but where rapid change is taking place,” said Dr. Britney Schmidt, lead scientist for Icefin and associate professor in Georgia Tech’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Schmidt, a co-investigator on the MELT project, in a press release announcing the results. “We’re proud of Icefin since it represents a new way of looking at glaciers and ice shelves. For really the first time, we can drive miles under the ice to measure and map processes we can’t otherwise reach. We’ve taken the first close-up look at a grounding zone. It’s our ‘walking on the moon’ moment.”
Well, let's see what the scientists could say.
We need to study this for at least another ten years to check how bad it's going to get. We wouldn't want any more polar bears to starve.
I'm afraid there are no more polar bears around that glacier.Well, that's good. At least no more will die. The scientists are already doing valuable work. Maybe with ten year more research, the polar bears will be back. :)
You should read it, Russ
This was not so much a doomsday report, as an interesting article how the scientists drilled with a hot water drill a hole in half-a-mile thick ice. You need a lot of heavy machinery for a project like that.
Given the size and tremendous heat capacity of the global oceans, it takes a massive amount of heat energy to raise Earth’s average yearly surface temperature even a small amount. The 2-degree increase in global average surface temperature that has occurred since the pre-industrial era (1880-1900) might seem small, but it means a significant increase in accumulated heat. That extra heat is driving regional and seasonal temperature extremes, reducing snow cover and sea ice, intensifying heavy rainfall, and changing habitat ranges for plants and animals—expanding some and shrinking others.
It's been getting warmer since the Ice Age ended 12,000 years ago. Man, animals and fauna have all done terrific the warmer it got. So we're all going to do better. Isn't that good? Frankly, I think a warmer winter is nice. I was out yesterday practicing with my new 4x5 camera. It was in the 50's. I would have stayed home if it was really cold. Warmer weather is good for photography. And photographers. :)
I like it also more when it's warmer. But those warmer winters could seriously impact Florida economy. Just think of all the snow birds who stop going south.You may be right. I live in 55+ community. Loads of people on my block are in FLorida right now keeping their buns warm. If it warms up there, they might not go. But it still will be pretty cold up there in Canada where you live. So things will get cheaper in Florida for you and other Canadians. See? Global Warming is good for the economy. The Canadian economy.
“The Argentine research base, which is called Esperanza, it’s on the northern tip of the Antarctic peninsula; it set a new record temperature yesterday: 18.3°C, which is not a figure you would normally associate with Antarctica even in summertime. This beat the former record of 17.5°C, which was set back in 2015.”
“It’s among the fastest-warming regions of the planet”, Ms. Nullis said of the Antarctic. “We hear a lot about the Arctic, but this particular part of the Antarctic peninsula is warming very quickly. Over the past 50 years it’s warmed almost 3°C.” Amid steadily warming temperatures, Ms. Nullis also noted that the amount of ice lost annually from the Antarctic ice sheet “increased at least six-fold between 1979 and 2017”. Most of this ice loss happens when ice shelves melt from below, as they come into contact with relatively warm ocean water,
Antarctica weather breaks the records. Yesterday, it was warmer there than in Jacksonville in Florida.
https://news.un.org/en/story/2020/02/1056902
Man, animals and fauna have all done terrific the warmer it got. So we're all going to do better. Isn't that good?
Alan, what you keep saying over and over and over is simply not true.You're deciding which animals and plants are more valuable to nature. The point is the number and diversity and especially the ranges have increased as the climate has gotten warmer. Think of the huge range and population increases that have occured since the ice age ended due to warming. Let's face it, there wouldn't be any Canadians if it was colder. Les would have moved to FLorida a long time ago. Also, while I hate ticks as much as the moose must, ticks are prey to many animals including other insects and birds. So their ranges and population will increase. Also, moose will adapt as deer adapted. Read Darwin. Bottom line is warmer weather is better for animals and plants even though there will be minor displacements of some species.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/winter-ticks-climate-change-moose-1.5452694
Forests and animals in general and moose in particular are dying at unprecedented rates due to insect infestation resulting from warmer winters.
Arctic natives are seeing insects they've never seen before.
I haven't counted moose in my neighbourhood, but I got a pretty good understanding of the japanese beetles plaque. As reported previously, we get now many times more of then than in previous years. They are pretty, but nobody eats them and they eat voraciously leaves on our berry bushes - currants, raspberries, and blackberries. Last summer, I neutralized thousands of them (40-50 per day for at least 100 days), otherwise the plants wouldn't have survived their onslaught. Who needs those invaders?I can;t stand ticks. I've had Lyme disease and my dog almost died from some tick borne disease. I'm afraid to go into the woods to take pictures. So I understand. New Jersey where I live i like the central cross hairs for their livelihood. But that's not the point. When climate changes there are winners and losers, mainly winners. If it was colder, you;d have to leave Canada. The point I'm making is that warmer climate is good for all species mainly, Sure there are local imbalances that occur. But generally, all species do better/ One look at the tropics like in Brazil and you can appreciate just how varied and populated the place is. Pointing out one or two species that might be having problems from warm weather is only telling half the story. That's what makes people so suspicious of the claims. Leaving out the species that are growing when discussing these things, just make people like myself question the honesty of the supporters of climate change. They have their thumbs on the scale.
... Putting in less would, at the very least, contribute to a slowing down of the effect and buy us some time. But nope, all you get to hear about is economics, and how bad it might be for business to do anything to save our species! ...
... students occupying his 15th-century quadrangle and refusing to leave until the college divested its oil-company shares. The students want the college to sell the more than $10 million of its endowment now invested in Shell and BP, and they want it now.
... bursar Andrew Parker made them a counteroffer. “I am not able to arrange any divestment at short notice,” he wrote. “But I can arrange for the gas central heating in college to be switched off with immediate effect. Please let me know if you support this proposal.”
“A Heated Oxford Education
Protesting students get a personal lesson about fossil fuels.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-heated-oxford-education-11580680180?emailToken=3235e27a89fc2771d4f00eba3db46873VpLXirAFKJXTW0D3vK+n7jh8buXzfDc3WEmeJrRcoe8YMsHkZe9%2F3%2FQNeKHwcsOWi2bUJzbN1J74cCVlogRuQQ%3D%3D&reflink=article_copyURL_share
;D ;D ;D
If he were to divest at short notice, the students wouldn't mind putting on some extra clothes. But he is not making such an offer, so why should they?I've made that offer to my wife. But she didn't take me up on it. :)
Meanwhile, this Saturday, we're bracing ourselves for a Gigantic (ranging from Norway to North Spain) Low-pressure system that's traveling from Ireland towards the Werstern European coast. Tomorrow, Sunday Febr. 9th, 2020, in the afternoon, the storm named "Ciara" is anticipated to deliver windgusts on land with a speed of more than 120 Km/h, Schiphol Amsterdan Airport has cancelled several dozens of flights, Soccer-games and other outdoor-activities have been cancelled, and roadtraffic is advised to avoid traveling with empty trucks and prepare for delays. The peak is expected between 18:00h - 20:00h local time. It's a Code Orange situation, so it could be worse, but it's still something to take seriously.
Due to heavy rains last week, the water level in the river Meuse, where it enters the country, has rizen to 13.75 meters (a little over 45 feet) above (roughly) average sea-level. But that's not a critical level yet. Let's hope the wind coming from the South-West doesn't damage the water-management systems or raises the level any more.
We just got rid of Gloria so please, no Gigantics required right now!
A neighbour has a nice, shiny new black Audi which helps raise the tone of the parking lot. During a recent weather tantrum, it became landing strip for a few terracotta pantiles from off the roof of a building. Roof, hood and trunk all badly dented. Could have been my Fiesta - lucky this time: it's hail that dents it every year, but not this year yet.
Production of oil and natural gas in North America is at an all-time high due to the development and use
of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. Methane emissions associated with this industrial activity
are a concern because of the contribution to climate radiative forcing.
Methane emissions from the U.S. oil and natural gas supply chain have received much recent attention and are estimated to be 2.3% of gross U.S. gas production4 and 41% of the anthropogenic U.S. emissions.
Daily Satellite Observations of Methane from Oil and Gas Production Regions in the United StatesIf we were not producing it, someone else would or other carbon fossil fuels would be used that are dirtier. Fracking has made us energy independent of oil and gas. It may help us stay out of Middle East conflicts, while you are dependent on buying Saudi oil and Russian natural gas. The additional wealth created by fracking has made America a lot richer. It's allowed us to reduce by half the dirtier coal we used before with cleaner natural gas, reducing our CO2 footprint and amount of pollution.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-57678-4.pdf?origin=ppub
If we were not producing it, someone else would or other carbon fossil fuels would be used that are dirtier. Fracking has made us energy independent of oil and gas. It may help us stay out of Middle East conflicts, while you are dependent on buying Saudi oil and Russian natural gas. The additional wealth created by fracking has made America a lot richer. It's allowed us to reduce by half the dirtier coal we used before with cleaner natural gas, reducing our CO2 footprint and amount of pollution.
If we were not producing it, someone else would or other carbon fossil fuels would be used that are dirtier.
To reduce the effects of methane, EPA could establish new rules and add methane credits. Since a significant volume of methane is generated by the cows and pigs for the benefit of meat eaters, the vegetarians and vegans could earn methane pollution credits. EPA could then sell or trade the earned credits to livestock farms, steakhouses and individual carnivores.
To reduce the effects of methane, EPA could establish new rules and add methane credits. Since a significant volume of methane is generated by the cows and pigs for the benefit of meat eaters, the vegetarians and vegans could earn methane pollution credits. EPA could then sell or trade the earned credits to livestock farms, steakhouses and individual carnivores.Well, as an individual carnivore, I would be willing to pay for methane credits if vegans paid their fair share for eating beans. :-[
Well, as an individual carnivore, I would be willing to pay for methane credits if vegans paid their fair share for eating beans. :-[
That could be indeed an opportunity for a new trade exchange platform - cattle methane output vs human methane output credits. I estimate that the vegans would come ahead and they could even get some options and credits eligible for the fuel for their vehicles. Or utilize the methane directly for the car propulsion.People fueled automobiles. Now, where's Elon Musk when we really need him?
While I'd potentially agree with the observable different contributions by various stakeholders, I tend to be more focused on actual reduction of unwanted emssions. Selling or trading emision does not fundamentally change the contribution to the surplus of greenhouse gasses.
If we can avoid it, let's do, but when we cannot at this moment in time, let's try.
Global warming:
https://www.foxnews.com/world/iraq-snow-baghdad-first-time-in-over-a-decade-winter-weather
Interesting pictures, but very unsettling music.
Global warming:
https://www.foxnews.com/world/iraq-snow-baghdad-first-time-in-over-a-decade-winter-weather
Global warming:
https://www.foxnews.com/world/iraq-snow-baghdad-first-time-in-over-a-decade-winter-weather
Could the Solar System be causing recent changes in carbon in the atmosphere affecting the climate? Could this be one of the missing parameters needed for a more accurate computer simulation of global warming?
"Scientists show solar system processes control the carbon cycle throughout Earth's history"
https://phys.org/news/2020-02-scientists-solar-carbon-earth-history.html
Abstract
The variability in solar irradiance, the main external energy source of the Earth's system, must be critically studied in order to place the effects of human‐driven climate change into perspective and allow plausible predictions of the evolution of climate. Accurate measurements of total solar irradiance (TSI) variability by instruments onboard space platforms during the last three solar cycles indicate changes of approximately 0.1% over the sunspot cycle. Physics‐based models also suggest variations of the same magnitude on centennial to millennia time‐scales.
It's already warming up there. 5C right now, forecast for tomorrow and next few days 29C.
A climate advocacy group called Skeptical Science hosts a list of academics that it has labeled “climate misinformers.” The list includes 17 academics and is intended as a blacklist. We know of this intent because one of the principals of Skeptical Science, a blogger named Dana Nuccitelli, said so last Friday, writing of one academic on their list, “if you look at the statements we cataloged and debunked on her [Skeptical Science] page, it should make her unhirable in academia.”
That so-called “unhirable” academic is Professor Judy Curry, formerly the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, and a Fellow of both the American Geophysical Union and American Meteorological Society. By any conventional academic metric, Curry has compiled an impressive record over many decades. The idea that she would be unhirable would seem laughable.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2020/02/09/a-climate-blacklist-that-works-it-should-make-her-unhirable-in-academia/?fbclid=IwAR1teB-pjebUJTn3qUOEHI0QbrS0wZu1H50ZXVcWoLMgohQHjEnO3AsuAeE#5cf713663682
"How Academic ‘Blacklists’ Impede Serious Work On Climate Science"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2020/02/09/a-climate-blacklist-that-works-it-should-make-her-unhirable-in-academia/?fbclid=IwAR1teB-pjebUJTn3qUOEHI0QbrS0wZu1H50ZXVcWoLMgohQHjEnO3AsuAeE#5cf713663682
"How Academic ‘Blacklists’ Impede Serious Work On Climate Science"
Hi Bart, Where does “mediabiasfactcheck.com” rate on the factual reporting scale? In other words, who's deciding what's "factual?"
They obviously do not rate themselves (otherwise they'd possibly be rted as "stable geniuses").
The question is how do others rate them? Perhaps like the Columbia Jounalism Review for example?
Exactly, and I'm always suspicious of any outfit with enough chutzpah to call itself a "rating" company.
Exactly, and I'm always suspicious of any outfit with enough chutzpah to call itself a "rating" company.Wasn't it the rating companies like Moody's and S&P and Fitch and others that overrated the worthless stock that caused the 2008 recession when the real estate market collapsed? They didn't want to lose their clients, the banks that hired them to rate their worthless real estate stock as something AAA valuable when it was worth Ddd-, or slightly higher than dog poop.
Depends on who those 'others' are.
Why are you deflecting so much here Bart? Do you have a problem with say, the Columbia Jounalism Review?
I haven't studied their reporting, but Media Bias/Fact Check has (not that Russ trusts their judgement based on ???):
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/columbia-journalism-review/
MBFC has them labeled as: "Overall, we rate Columbia Journalism Review Left-Center Biased based on editorial positions that moderately favor the left. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record."
So who am I to disagree, before you show me something specific to judge for myself?
Yes, "Skeptical Science" is very highly rated for its factual reporting on Science.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/skeptical-science/
Forbes is more of a mixed bag in general, with a 3 steps lower rating.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/forbes/
That is a quite skillful ad hominem deflection from the main point: aggressive blacklisting of reputable climate scientists who do not fall in line.
It's your assumption that the Forbes contributor is unbiased, and that Skeptical Science website is wrong.
I do not see it as my task to correct everything that people believe ... , although I may at times.
We are not talking about assumptions or who believes what, but about facts presented in the article, emails, interviews etc. Which show a pattern of aggressive lobbying to blacklist scientists that dare to veer off the prescribed path, losing jobs and academic positions, in spite of stellar careers up to that point. Certainly one way to achieve a "scientific consensus."
The last time France experienced a December and January as mild as this year was in 1900, according to Christelle Robert, a forecaster with Meteo-France, the national meteorological service. Weather has always fluctuated from year to year, but Robert said a clear pattern was emerging - of mild winters and less snow - that was in line with global warming. If the trend continues, ski resorts around 1,600 meters above sea level will be so warm they cannot even spray artificial snow on their pistes. It will melt.
I've mentioned it before, in another thread, but it might be useful to repeat it here (since there still seem to be folks in denial about the trend of rising (global) temperatures).
In the Netherlands we have a winter-tradition called the "Elf steden tocht" (the eleven cities tour):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elfstedentocht .
It is a 200 km long tour with ice skates on natural ice (frozen canals and waterways), leading past 11 cities in one single day, in the Northern province of Friesland. It has been officially organized since 1909, although there are reports of it being done since 1760.
The event only takes place once a year, provided that the ice is thick enough (at least 15 centimeters thick along the entire course).
Here are the years that is was possible to do the run:
1909
1912
1917
1929
1933
1940
1941
1942
1947
1954
1956
1963
1985
1986
1997
So, this event is not linked to a specific date, but it just has to be cold enough during the winter to grow ice that's going to be thick enough, and then it's a go within 48 hours (and care is taken to reduce the flow of water, as part of our water-management). The frequency of being able to organize the event has gradually been going down.
Yet another demonstration of the effects of Global warming as witnessed in a local venue.
Some caused the problem from 63 to 85?
So, what was the cause in the year 1900?
Yes, the intervals are getting larger due to rising temperatures. The average temperature in the Netherlands has been rising some 1.5-2.0 degrees Celsius since official systematic recording around the 1900's. It's been 23 years since the latest 11 cities event (with one close call in 2019), and it's getting less likely (although theoretically still possible) that it will happen this year.
What caused the problem from 63 to 85?
Heat.
Part of the reason that folks still deny the changes going down is that they think it is all going to be an immediate thing you can measure over five years or something short like that. Global warming due to mankind has been going on for ages. We didn't start to pollute with the advent of the petrol engine, you know. We have been doing it with fossil fuels over centuries.
For some years when I lived in Glasgow, I can remember my mother bringing in grey washing - and we lived in a nice, leafy suburb, not in the city. As an apprentice, I can remember cycling home from work and having to get off and push the bike because I literally could not see a yard ahead. That was in the fifties. Later on, when I had a car, I recall driving back from the city following the tramlines, and hoping I remembered which turned off where. They brought in clean air acts, and that stuff became history. Fog, yes, a different but related beast, but the industrial smog was gone.
Today, engineering industry gasses (and coal fires at home) have been replaced as pollutants by vastly more cars and aircraft than ever existed before, and we produce pollution that is largely invisible to the naked eye if not to the lungs. Population growth has caused much more agriculture-based pollution than ever before.
It does not follow - never did - that every year would follow the exact pattern of the one before it; we go up and down, high and low, but the thing is, there is also an overall pattern to be considered, and that's what should get us thinking seriously. There's no denying that natural events like explodoing volcanoes and meteorite hits also caused vast climate changes in history; natural events indeed, but nowhere does it follow that man doing his best to stop his own pollution from getting worse is not going to help us survive - if only a little longer.
I think that's the whole point of what we are trying to do: stall the beginning of the end.
I clearly don't deny that climate changes. Heck just north of my location was once a giant glacier. It's now what is know as Great Lakes. How did that happen? The climate changed. Humans had zero to do with that change.
In my opinion we have zero chance of changing it now. The earth and universe are beyond our control. As for trying to "FIX" what we have now...given the likelyhood of unexpected conequences, we just might screw things up totally. And I'm not talking about the environment. Science is grasping at straws. They have no real idea of whats going on, only educated guesses. Nothing wrong with making guesses based on incomplete data but lets call a spade a spade here. No one reallly knows how this will work out as time goes forward. Lets stop pretending we do.
Saying we must do this or that to "save the planet" is hyperbole, IMO.
I think that's the whole point of what we are trying to do: stall the beginning of the end.
Except that it may be the case that the direction we're headed is bad so maybe we should do what is within our power to do. Reducing resource and energy use is a good idea regardless of anything else. I don't mean passing legislation that forces us to be "good", that's a mug's game. But it would be a good idea to stop pretending that externalities aren't real costs.
There is raw political power at play here, at least IMO.
1. Rob, can you think of a single case in history where humans turned away from a course of action before they reached the point of understanding that what they were doing was an existential disaster? I can't.
2. On the other hand, I don't agree that we're facing that kind of disaster. I have too many geologists and geophysicists in my family. Since I was there when it was happening, and had it vividly described and explained, I'm well aware of the period when we were facing extermination in a new ice age -- as surely as we're now facing incineration. In the end I think the hand of God either will save us from ourselves, or if the Lord has decided we've been around long enough, bring down the curtain on the whole performance.
Why is humanity so perverse?
Because greed.
I have no problem if people want to drive electric cars and use solar and wind power. Don't want to eat beef?And money. Carbon credits will favor many companies and individuals. Government grants for research into climate change keeps the articles and research papers coming. Movies, documentaries, magazine articles, photographers, scuba divers, and others are getting rich from climate change. Solar, electric car, and other related manufacturers get grants and rebates from government to keep their businesses going. The very aspect of climate change brings wealth to them as they sell their products. Universities get grants as well for research. Politicians gain power selling the idea. It goes on and on.
Fine with me. The market will take care of that. So much of this we just can't understand and can't control. But I think its also a good idea to stop pretending that this will not be a situation where passing legislation to make us be good, it not really the end game. There is raw political power at play here, at least IMO.
So it seems it's been very warm in Europe and elsewhere this winter not because of global warming but due to an extra strong Polar Vortex above the Arctic locking up cold air from descending to lower latitudes. The article makes no comment that I noticed explaining the cause for the large Polar Vortex other than a big difference it temperatures between polar regions and lower latitudes.
But why did this happen this year? Sun spots? Solar system perturbations? Cow farts?
Because most of us believe in freedom...
So do I; I do not, however, believe in mass suicide being inflicted upon the rest of us by folks who refuse to accept the evidence before their very eyes.
It gets wearying dealing with rubber-wall minds; perhaps that's why they get promoted and encouraged, conditioned by their leaders to retain the profitable status quo until those making a killing out of it are no longer around to give a shit about the next generations.
On behalf of my kids and grandchildren: thank you for your concer, folks; so touching!
Actually it appears you don’t really want freedom, as witnessed by you wanting to set a ceiling on wealth.
Now you want to do it in regards to personal freedoms that may or may not relate to some scientists guesses about how humans are effecting the climate.
Again people are doing what they want with regards to helping the “climate” of their own free will. The results are working.
Bart, before you go too far with this approach, check https://fee.org/articles/4-catastrophic-climate-predictions-that-never-came-true/
I do not follow your knee-jerk reaction to progress. There are lots of jobs and innovation in renewable energy, fewer and fewer in e.g. coal.
You seem to claim personal freedom for yourself, but at the same time deny the personal freedom of others. You also seem to reject science. That's a poor basis for realistic analysis, IMHO of course.
The results are not working. Climate is affected at a rate that nature cannot keep up with, leading to extinction. Rising (salt) water-levels around the world are causing a threat to freshwater supply for human consumption and irrigation and give rise to loss of coastal farmland and of real estate property. People are dying prematurely from the causes of air-pollution.
That's not freedom, that's avoidable manmade stupidity due to short-term 'thinking'.
And it will unavoidably cost more (not less), the longer we wait to mitigate/remedy it. Studies have shown, that the break-even point indeed is close to the maximizing of global temperature rise to about 2 degrees Celsius. Prevention is better/cheaper than cure. Even in a large country like the USA, you are not prepared for the mass migration and social consequences when you lose the ability to live and have harbors where the current coastline is.
Russ, I see mostly claims by non-scientific sources. I'd expect those to be mistaken more often than peer reviewed scientific studies. No surprise there.
Also, some 'predictions' are based on rational risk avoiding behavior by humans, and if this thread proves anything, some humans are so deep in denial that 'rational' is not an appropriate desciption. That's why many scientific models are rather optimistic, until human behavior (or the lack thereoff) forces them to readjust the models.
As mentioned, a behavior that limits global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius seems to give the best balance between upfront cost and later damage repair, yet we are heading in the direction of 3-5 degrees global warming if we do not react adequately to the challenges in front of us.
I have no problem if people want to drive electric cars and use solar and wind power. Don't want to eat beef?
Fine with me. The market will take care of that. So much of this we just can't understand and can't control. But I think its also a good idea to stop pretending that this will not be a situation where passing legislation to make us be good, it not really the end game. There is raw political power at play here, at least IMO.
Ah yes, the my science is far better argument. What a novel argument.
It's also your science. One can ignore it, or not, that is a personal choice.
...yet we are heading in the direction of 3-5 degrees global warming if we do not react adequately to the challenges in front of us.
I do not follow your knee-jerk reaction to progress. There are lots of jobs and innovation in renewable energy, fewer and fewer in e.g. coal.
...
Its MY science? But yes I can choose what to do with it. The problem is I'm being told I don't have a choice, and I MUST succumb. Do you see the problem with that?
The argument renewables create more jobs is a reason NOT to use them.Sadly, for most politicians, the choice to support project A, which creates lots of local jobs, versus project B, which accomplishes the same goal cheaply and efficiently, is obvious.
You missed the economic considerations.
Adding people to make the same amount of energy is less productive, not more.
More people raise the costs of any product. Coal is very efficient as it's a mature industry that doesn;t need new people.
Creating alternative energy products that require more people means higher costs as what's happened in Germany where they're playing 2 1/2 times for electricity as Americans do.
If we got rid of tractors, a farm would need lots of more people to sow and reap. More jobs. But the cost of food would skyrocket due to increasing costs of labor to farm the same amount of produce.
The argument renewables create more jobs is a reason NOT to use them.
Why would you want to lay the burdon on others, and do little yourself (e.g. the USA is the world's second largest producer of CO2), other than for selfish shortsighted reasons (that will turn against you as time is wasted)?
You do have a choice, but why make the wrong one?
If we got rid of tractors, a farm would need lots of more people to sow and reap. More jobs. But the cost of food would skyrocket due to increasing costs of labor to farm the same amount of produce.
I’m not placing any burdens on others. You and they can do what ever wish wish or not. No one is stopping you. In fact it’s you who is placing the burden upon others based solely on your belief.What burden is being placed on you? I'm not seeing what it is that has you so riled up.
What burden is being placed on you? I'm not seeing what it is that has you so riled up.
Last month was the hottest January on record, surpassing a previous high recorded in 2016, the US climate service said on Thursday.
Land and ocean surface temperatures surpassed the 20th century January average of 53.6F (12C) by 2.05F, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said.
And they beat January 2016 - the hottest January since records began in 1880 - by a narrow 0.04F.
The news confirms a similar finding by the European Union's climate monitoring service last week, which used slightly different data.
It comes as the Antarctic has registered a temperature of more than 68F (20C) for the first time, prompting fears of climate instability.
Scientists agree overwhelmingly that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are a significant cause of the planetary warming we are currently experiencing.
The United Nations said last year these need to tumble 7.6 per cent annually over the next decade to cap global warming at (2.7F) above pre-industrial levels, the aspirational goal set in the landmark Paris Agreement.
If it's not here today, it's what is being demanded for the future. Lets talk "New Green Deal" shall we? You don't think that will be a burden? Thats the problem I have.Surely you are not losing sleep over the possibility the New Green Deal will pass in the House and Senate and be signed the President.
Hottest January on record as Antarctica temperature hits 20C for first time
Scientists agree that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are a significant cause of the current planetary warming
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/02/14/records-broken-hottest-ever-january/
Surely you are not losing sleep over the possibility the New Green Deal will pass in the House and Senate and be signed the President.
Hottest January on record as Antarctica temperature hits 20C for first time
Scientists agree that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are a significant cause of the current planetary warming
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/02/14/records-broken-hottest-ever-january/
Its MY science? But yes I can choose what to do with it. The problem is I'm being told I don't have a choice, and I MUST succumb. Do you see the problem with that?
Actually it appears you don’t really want freedom, as witnessed by you wanting to set a ceiling on wealth. Now you want to do it in regards to personal freedoms that may or may not relate to some scientists guesses about how humans are effecting the climate.
Again people are doing what they want with regards to helping the “climate” of their own free will. The results are working. The markets are working. It’s called freedom. Doing it at the point of a gun ( metaphorically) is not freedom. You 2ant to impose your will on others. I stand for just the opposite. Do all you want to change, vote with your dollars, but keep your demand on how I can live my life. (via draconian laws)
On the contrary, I've said it several times already, but you seem to not grasp it. It's more costly to not act sensibly.More people used to produce the same amount of electricity lowers productivity and raises costs for each KWH produced. There's no other economic explanation as much as you try to spin it. If green energy reduces the amount of people required, than that would be great. Prices for power would go down. But your argument is wrong.
Tell that to the coalminers.
You're kidding/trolling, aren't you?
Coal is not efficient when the true cost is incorporated. How much is (human) life worth to you?
No, we do not require more people for that. We require more energy as world population grows and we replace many processes with electric ones (not too many steam engines available anymore, are there?).
We are not replacing tractors with people, your example is ludicrous.
More skilled labor is needed not for its own sake, but to replace inefficient technology with higher quality jobs. More and better education is needed because jobs need that. There are fewer people entering the labor market, so they need to be better equipped for the tasks at hand. Export markets are expanding, so you should invest in people/skills and technology you can export and monetize (instead of importing/consuming more that you earn, which requires printing money and burdening future generations). One could go on, but I won't waste more words on it. "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink".
If only people would open their eyes... Not to stare at their bellybutton, but to look forward to the (no too distant) future.
Freedom; you confuse it with licence.
Freedom appears to be a word built into some minds as a kind of trigger or switch that passes beyond the actual meaning of freedom and takes on the mantle of personal irresponsibility. If you inhabit a cave, an island all your own, then yeah, independence is able to turn into the freedom to shoot your head right off your body, but please, don't do it in the crowded bus in which we all travel at the same time - with the doors welded shut. Your divine freedom does not stretch to the right to inflict bloody collateral damage on the other passengers.
:-)
Yes, I see the problem with that: you not having a choice and you being indignant about that because you always want a choice. But neither does any one of us have that choice. It is not a matter of a comfortable choice, a Republican choice, a Democrat choice or any other friggin' colour of choice - it is a matter of reality and us all having to stop thinking like schoolboy idiots wanting it to be our team rah, rah! There is no competition to win, no team, there is only the realisation that the problem is bigger than all of us and we have to pull out all the stops we have. If food gets more expensive, so be it: buy a cheaper car next time or a smaller house, watch fewer pay-to-view channels and wear the same wardrobe of clothes two years running; let your good jeans develop the rips naturally.
Bringing in India and China is not an answer to your, our, neglect and head-in-sand attitude. They will do what they can as they can - they also know the problem and, surprise, surprise, also want to live - we, the rich dogs in the West already can do a helluva lot if we want to, and that is the massive difference and why we should be ashamed of our inactivity; Jesus, half of us don't even want to think.
Better our trying to save this place than killing our grandchildren.
I think everyone wants to be good stewards of the environment. We all live here, breathe the same air and drink the same water. Disagreements about policy doesn;t mean one side or the other is out to blow up the world.
Freedom; you confuse it with licence.
Freedom appears to be a word built into some minds as a kind of trigger or switch that passes beyond the actual meaning of freedom and takes on the mantle of personal irresponsibility. If you inhabit a cave, an island all your own, then yeah, independence is able to turn into the freedom to shoot your head right off your body, but please, don't do it in the crowded bus in which we all travel at the same time - with the doors welded shut. Your divine freedom does not stretch to the right to inflict bloody collateral damage on the other passengers.
:-)
... Better our trying to save this place than killing our grandchildren.
What grandchildren? According to your side, there should be no children, let alone grandchildren.
I'm not confusing it at all Rob. To call it personal irresponsibility is just about as bad, maybe worse that thinking you and perhaps society has the right to tell someone how much money they can have.
What on Earth are you talking about? I don't have a side; I have two kids and two grandkids.
A growing contingent of young people are refusing to have kids — or are considering having fewer kids — because of climate change. Their voices have been growing louder over the past year. UK women set up a movement called BirthStrike, announcing that they won’t procreate until the world gets its act together on climate, and high-profile US figures like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez amplified the question of whether childbearing is still morally acceptable.
One of the main worries cited by this contingent is that having a child will make climate change worse. Their logic is that anytime you have a kid you’re doing something bad for the planet. You’re adding yet another person who’ll cause more carbon emissions, plus their children, plus their grandchildren ... and so on, in a never-ending cascade of procreative shame.
Driving this logic are studies claiming to show that having a child leads to a gargantuan amount of carbon emissions — way, way more than the emissions generated by other lifestyle choices, like driving a car or eating meat. Media reports have trumpeted the takeaway that if you want to fight climate change, having fewer children is far and away the best thing you can do.
EVERYONE should have a choice, if they live in a free society. And those who don't ..we should be trying to bring them that choice. And of course I want a choice and yes I am indignant when someone says, sorry we are taking your choice away.
It's clear you have drank the kool-aid. More power to you. I'll pass, thank you very much.
... most cats I know would be happy to settle for one million in any of their accounts - in the totality of their accounts, myself very much included in that dream!
Setting a fifty-million cap on personal wealth hardly strikes me as oppressive: most cats I know would be happy to settle for one million in any of their accounts - in the totality of their accounts, myself very much included in that dream!
.... Check Venezuela to see what happens when governments put a cap on personal wealth...
What grandchildren? According to your side, there should be no children, let alone grandchildren.I thought we would skip the hyperboles...
I thought we would skip the hyperboles...
EVERYONE does have a choice; everyone has a zillion choices, but not all are acceptable in a society that works. A society that works has to have limitations of many freedoms for otherwise, your freedom would quickly be chaos. Is that so difficult to understand? It is asinine to claim that choice is life; choices are not all equal anymore than are people: one man's choice can mean another man's death. Do you feel you should have the choice to cause or not cause that on whim, perhaps - it would still be a choice, you know, and a cherished freedom by which you would be killing? Think about it; choices have to be rational and not harmful to society.
Screams for freedom are often little more than slogans designed to rouse the rabble. Alternatively, they are often screams for help, for deliverance from oppression whether religious or political. It all depends upon your point of departure.
Setting a fifty-million cap on personal wealth hardly strikes me as oppressive: most cats I know would be happy to settle for one million in any of their accounts - in the totality of their accounts, myself very much included in that dream!
These are not hyperboles, as I demonstrated in my next post.I do not know the scientific value of Founders Pledge/stories/ ... but if they are right the US has more reason to do something about the CO2 emissions ( children?)
... When you tell me that I need to change my way of life, upend our social norms, and ...how did you put it...”pull out all the stops we have”, to fulfill YOUR choices, pardon me when I tell you my choice is to say heck no.
...But it is mostly the other way around;
Screams of freedom generally arise when one group of people decide they want to stifle the freedom of others, like you are doing. Be it wealth, a way of life or any number of other things where some group of people decide they are going to make new rules to control another. ...
What's being proposed here in America lately is socialism and the kind of confiscatory government like they had in the Soviet Union.another hyperbole...
Redistribution is not about helping the real poor. Our system is taking care of them. No one is really poor in America if they take advantage of the private and government programs available. The push for redistribution is really all about taking from others to make average people better off then they are. It's founded on jealousy and covetousness. It has nothing to do with poverty. That's just the excuse to justify it. Average people just wanting more than they got and wanting to take it from others. It's stealing. It happens when a people lose faith in a God who takes care of them. So they start grubbing around taking from others. They've lost their way. They've lost their gratitude for what they have and what God has given them.I tend to disagree completely ... there are enough poor people in the States, even people with mulitple jobs that still do not earn enough...
But it is mostly the other way around;But the proof in America is that we're the richest country in the world and have the most freedoms. People from around the world are dying to get here. So throughout all our faults, more people have done better than ever before in history. That's the bottom line. Changing it would be playing with fire.
The wealthy group have more freedom and are also in power while making decisions for 'the poor group' that largely benefits themselves to become even wealthier.
That is a world wide problem at the moment even in democratic countries.
I tend to disagree completely ... there are enough poor people in the States, even people with mulitple jobs that still do not earn enough...
another hyperbole...So your answer to economic problems is redistribution. How about less taxes and less regulation? That's what helping us now with less unemployment, better jobs, and higher wages. So your answer is to steal Bloomberg's money. How about all the jobs and wealth he's created throughout the world with his Bloomberg Media empire? How many jobs will the government create?
I tend to disagree completely ... there are enough poor people in the States, even people with mulitple jobs that still do not earn enough...
; to say it is their own fault and they are greedy is ridiculous...
and please leave GOD out of this...
Also, why should I leave God out of it. It's my opinion. You have yours. I have mine. Maybe if we had more faith, we wouldn't being doing what we do to each other.Maybe if we had a loving God, we wouldn't have poverty...or climate change.
Maybe if we had a loving God, we wouldn't have poverty...or climate change.
Mice dreaming.
Political side, Rob. And I was talking about future children and grandchildren.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/13/21132013/climate-change-children-kids-anti-natalism
"Having one fewer child is far and away the best thing you can do to save the planet"
Rob, you seem to believe that personal wealth is cash that somebody hides in a mattress. Actually, personal wealth amounts to capital. Capital means things like hydraulic presses in a factory. People who make use of capital do it to produce more wealth, for themselves and for others -- otherwise known as "customers." Instead of producing capital, governments who steal personal wealth use it to produce politics rather than more wealth. Check Venezuela to see what happens when governments put a cap on personal wealth.
People who believe there should be a limit on personal wealth desperately need a course in basic economics. Thomas Sowell's book, Basic Economics is a good place to start.
Maybe if we had a loving God, we wouldn't have poverty...or climate change.
How much is "enough", Pieter?
It would be interesting to know where you're getting your information about the States. From what you're saying it sounds a lot as if it's coming directly from TV.
Yes, I choose to accept the limits that are placed upon me by the society I live in, just as I could choose to not accept them. So what? I could choose to cause another’s death at a whim. Again everyone could make that choice. So what? Choices do not have to be rational or not harmful to society. That too happens daily. All one needs to do is to be willing to accept the responsibility of ones actions. Like it or not that is the nature of the human race.
Screams of freedom generally arise when one group of people decide they want to stifle the freedom of others, like you are doing. Be it wealth, a way of life or any number of other things where some group of people decide they are going to make new rules to control another. But I guess that works out fine for you.
As for wealth. I celebrate those who make it big, and the last thing I want to do is tell them what they can do with their money. Someday thinking like that is going to roll down that slippery slope and entangle the smaller folks below. Taxes are bad enough, we don’t need wealth police.
When you tell me that I need to change my way of life, upend our social norms, and ...how did you put it...”pull out all the stops we have”, to fulfill YOUR choices, pardon me when I tell you my choice is to say heck no.
But it's not in cash. It's wrapped up in stock. Forcing a sale of stock would hurt all the other investors. Just wait until the stock is sold. Then it's taxed. Also, then it's spent so they're be sales tax on purchases, and then add to the economy by buying goods from other companies and give jobs to workers of those companies. Meanwhile, the stock is doing it's work as it was suppose to by financing a new company or an older company's continued expansion creating more jobs. Liquidating stock to create cash will hurt everyone. What you want to do is redistribute investment capital. That's how economies are destroyed. Look at Venezuela.
According to Rob: fifty million bucks. Would you feel deprived sitting on that golden egg? Would your personal desires require an even bigger personal egg?
Setting a fifty-million cap on personal wealth hardly strikes me as oppressive: most cats I know would be happy to settle for one million in any of their accounts - in the totality of their accounts, myself very much included in that dream!
The ceiling has to be substantially higher than 50 million. I would say, at least 50 billion.
Otherwise, Mike Bloomberg could not spend 200 million on his anti-Trump campaign. Or Bezos, Musk, and Branson on their space exploration projects.
What is it that believing in God actually promises you? Lets just use Christianity for simpliciticy. If we answer this question then perhaps we can understand if god is loving or not.If I remember correctly, everlasting life, if God deems you worthy. Otherwise, you burn in hell for eternity. Sort of a carrot and stick approach.
If I remember correctly, everlasting life, if God deems you worthy. Otherwise, you burn in hell for eternity...
Ah, were it but to fulfil my choices!
Unfortunately, it's not my choices at all but survival of which I write. Does your sense of "freedom" also condone doing nothing to save humanity? If it does, you must have more than a touch of the misanthrope lurking somewhere within you mind. There is a touch of it in mine, too, but not to the point of wishing us all extinction.
I find it difficult to understand that anyone would think personal freedom to sit back and let the world go to hell because of not wanting to do anything to prevent that on principle makes any kind of sense. I don't think I drank of the kool-aid: I don't think you left any!
If I remember correctly, everlasting life, if God deems you worthy. Otherwise, you burn in hell for eternity. Sort of a carrot and stick approach.
But it IS your choice, as you have stated repeatedly. You also choose to BELIEVE that this is about survival. No worries, you can believe as you choose. I can choose to belive otherwise. But to demand...even suggest I ( or we ) must abide by YOUR choice is simply wrong.That's part of the deal when you live in a society, in this cases a democracy. The majority decides...roughly. I don't like driving on the right side of the street. Tough cookies. I don't agree with every expenditure in the federal budget. Guess what? I don't have the choice to direct my taxes only towards expenditures I approve of. Living in a society has costs and benefits.
That's part of the deal when you live in a society, in this cases a democracy. The majority decides...roughly. I don't like driving on the right side of the street. Tough cookies. I don't agree with every expenditure in the federal budget. Guess what? I don't have the choice to direct my taxes only towards expenditures I approve of. Living in a society has costs and benefits.
Your choice in this case it to live where you live and vote or those who support your views. The consequence of your choice is you live live with the outcome, or you move. But yes there are costs and benefits. You choose to accept them.Including the collective judgment about what to do about climate change.
Including the collective judgment about what to do about climate change.
Germany spearheaded the decline in emissions in the European Union. Its emissions fell by 8% to 620 Mt of CO2, a level not seen since the 1950s, when the German economy was around 10 times smaller. The country’s coal-fired power fleet saw a drop in output of more than 25% year on year as electricity demand declined and generation from renewables, especially wind (+11%), increased. With a share of over 40%, renewables for the very first time generated more electricity in 2019 than Germany’s coal-fired power stations.
Some progress is made
https://www.iea.org/articles/global-co2-emissions-in-2019
Global energy-related CO2 emissions flattened in 2019 at around 33 gigatonnes (Gt), following two years of increases. This resulted mainly from a sharp decline in CO2 emissions from the power sector in advanced economies1, thanks to the expanding role of renewable sources (mainly wind and solar PV), fuel switching from coal to natural gas, and higher nuclear power output.
Germany is at the level of 1950 !
That graph really drives home the point that unless the non advanced countries are part of the solution its pretty much a feel good exercise. So where again are China and India onthe advanced/non advanced scale? And why again should the US lifestlye be trashed so folks like China can keep on keeping on?
Then it is for you that i have provided the link...
and it is not wise to compare your country with the one that has done worse - there will always be some.
and
And why again should the US respect human rights so folks like China can keep on keeping on? makes as much sense as you instance...
Those are the facts you presented. If you don't like what they say its really not my problem.
He is just punishing us for communists ;)
In that you have encapsulated your entire approach to this subject: you don't give a damn either way. Survive or perish, as long as you are not called upon to do anything - cool.
I hope your "freedom of choice of doing nothing" makes your conscience sweet when you look at the kids around you.
That's it for me - I can't show the wider picture to someone who won't look.
Rob
...Christ was one of the original communists of this world...
I note the smiley, but hey, Christ was one of the original communists of this world. Read Him up. It's the part many in the States don't figure on Sunday mornings.
;-)
A final proof that you crossed to the dark side ;)
... President Fidel Castro of Cuba has said Christ was a communist...
Quote from: Rob C on Today at 04:00:42 amThe Castros are just defending their dictatorial rule. Charity and spirituality are not about sticking a gun up to someone';s head demanding they give. It's about personal responsibility and commitment.
...Christ was one of the original communists of this world...
President Fidel Castro of Cuba has said Christ was a communist. "Christ chose the fishermen because he was a communist"
Raul Castro, second-in-command in the ruling Communist Party headed by his brother, concurred: "I think that's why they killed Jesus, for being a communist, for doing what Fidel defined as revolution . . . changing the situation."
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/christ-was-a-communist-says-castro-1.292935
And Kris Kristofferson thinks that Jesus was a Capricorn
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekFRunqwHEc
I rest my case.
Apparently warming permafrost won;t cause huge releases of methane warming the climate.
Old carbon reservoirs unlikely to cause massive greenhouse gas release
https://phys.org/news/2020-02-carbon-reservoirs-massive-greenhouse-gas.html
Methane hydrates, on the other hand, are mostly found in ocean sediments along the continental margins. In methane hydrates, cages of water molecules trap methane molecules inside. Methane hydrates can only form under high pressures and low temperatures, so they are mainly found deep in the ocean. If ocean temperatures rise, so will the temperature of the ocean sediments where the methane hydrates are located. The hydrates will then destabilize, fall apart, and release the methane gas.
"If even a fraction of that destabilizes rapidly and that methane is transferred to the atmosphere, we would have a huge greenhouse impact because methane is such a potent greenhouse gas," Petrenko says. "The concern really has to do with releasing a truly massive amount of carbon from these stocks into the atmosphere as the climate continues to warm."
Crying wolf all the time and never correcting errors won't convince skeptics.The scientific study referred to in the article corrects the error in belief concerning the release of methane from permafrost. Do you believe the scientific conclusions in this study. If so, why?
The scientific study referred to in the article corrects the error in belief concerning the release of methane from permafrost. Do you believe the scientific conclusions in this study. If so, why?
Apparently warming permafrost won;t cause huge releases of methane warming the climate.
The scientific study referred to in the article corrects the error in belief concerning the release of methane from permafrost. Do you believe the scientific conclusions in this study. If so, why?I have no idea whether it's accurate or not. How could I? I didn't do the study. What I do know is that the media will ignore these studies because they go against their arguments supporting climate change. That's the problem I'm highlighting. That the deck is stacked and the media is bottom dealing. The public is not getting a fair analysis because there's an agenda. And that agenda keeps skeptics remaining skeptical. Of course, most people have already drank the Cool-aide. So they'll ignore any studies that may question the "common" beliefs.
The biggest source of methane may well be from people yapping about climate change.depends on their diet
The biggest source of methane may well be from people yapping about climate change.
Depends if they are doing the yapping during meals: a recent study that I made reveals that methane output becomes greater when passions rise. That's particularly the case if there is a large bowl of lentejas soup on the go. Yummy!
Earth’s ocean has a much higher capacity to store heat than our atmosphere does. Thus, even relatively small exchanges of heat between the atmosphere and the ocean can result in significant changes in global surface temperatures. In fact, more than 90 percent of the extra heat from global warming is stored in the ocean. Periodically occurring ocean oscillations, such as El Niño and its cold-water counterpart, La Niña, have significant effects on global weather and can affect global temperatures for a year or two as heat is transferred between the ocean and atmosphere.
Understanding global temperature trends requires a long-term perspective. An examination of two famous climate records illustrate this point.
The Keeling Curve, a long-term record of global carbon dioxide concentrations is not a straight line: The curve jiggles up and down every year due to the seasonal cycling of carbon dioxide. But the long-term trend is clearly up, especially in recent decades. As countries around the world rapidly develop and gross domestic products increase, human-produced emissions of carbon dioxide are accelerating.
Les, Does Bart know you've been stealing his charts? :)
No, I go directly to the source, the NASA records. I didn't realize Bart posted those charts before. But posting it again won't hurt.Yes, it's one of his most favorite charts. He's posted updates very often. I think he owns stock in the equipment company that charts the data. Even Russ has mentioned how impressed he was with this chart. ;)
With some audiences, it might help to re-state the facts.
... With some audiences, it might help to re-state the facts.
Les, have you ever set through an annuity presentation (investments). Very persuasive. Because they use charts. Charts where they skillfully select a time period where what they peddle seems so true.
... Similarly to the atmospheric CO2 charts, you can select any date range in their historical database...
Exactly my point.
In the chart you posted, set the starting point to mid-2012 and see how it looks.
That's true, in that time frame the line goes down. But as Warren Buffers advocates, you have to ignore the noise and look at the long term trend.
5 billion years is totally unimaginable for me. It's difficult to imagine the world even in the next 100 years. And for most of us, our time frame is shorter still. Quite depressive.
Which, for the climate, is 5 billion years, not just since 1880 or 1960.
Absolutely, Rob. Let's hear from someone who was there.
Humans didn't walk with dinosaurs.You mean The Flintstones wasn't real?
You mean The Flintstones wasn't real?
Can anybody predict the year 2084?..
Can anybody predict the year 2084? What will be the biggest changes compared with today?
And how about 2884?
Quantifying the continuing cost of the increasing threat of climate change is, roughly speaking, impossible. Even just focusing on the financial impacts is daunting, much less putting a number on human suffering and species extinctions. But there are still things we can learn in the attempt. For example, some oppose action to reduce emissions as “too expensive.” Is that a good argument?
Building on previous efforts, a new study led by Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research scientists Nicole Glanemann and Sven Willner attempts a full-on cost-benefit calculation. Like a classic optimization problem, their analysis finds the cheapest combination of mitigation costs and damages—and finds that it’s around 2°C warming.
Oh, I can: Democrats would be still blaming Russia for 2016, 2020, 2024, etc. defeats.
Good question, but we need not wait that long before the shit hits the fan.
The cheapest climate target to hit?
Around 2°C
Action costs money, but so do the consequences of inaction.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/01/the-cheapest-climate-target-to-hit-around-2c/
It would be foolish to not act, even when in doubt.
Can anybody predict the year 2084? What will be the biggest changes compared with today?
And how about 2884?
I was more interested in what kind of animals and vehicles will be roaming the Earth at that time.
As to the US political scene, the Democrats will be by then a harmless fringe party, pushed aside by the coalition of Greens, Muslim Brotherhood and Anti-abortionists.
As to the other developments, foldable 7G iPhone75 with its 8x11 superthin screen will cost $9,995, although you'll be still able to find perfectly working second-hand iPhone 4 and Samsung 5 devices.
The aging Greta Thunberg will be still heading UN which will be located by then in Norway.
... In the USA, progressives and liberals have a birth rate of 1.5...
Just as an aside, I was listening to an interesting podcast on population demographics and growth/decay. In the USA, progressives and liberals have a birth rate of 1.5, below the minimum of 2.1 to maintain the population. So, people being raised in a progressive household will decrease over time. However, conservative and religious peoples have a birth rate of 2.6, a growing population. On top of that, the vast majority raised in a religious household remain religious later in life.We might not make it to then. The country is in trouble now. Huge debt and demands for more and more freebies that push printing of money that causes inflation that devalues currency, savings, salaries, and savings. Not a good prescription for success. We might not make it out of the election before recession, certainly something going to happen bad in next four years.
In 2084, the USA just may be majority conservative.
I was more interested in what kind of animals and vehicles will be roaming the Earth at that time.
As to the US political scene, the Democrats will be by then a harmless fringe party, pushed aside by the coalition of Greens, Muslim Brotherhood and Anti-abortionists.
As to the other developments, foldable 7G iPhone75 with its 8x11 superthin screen will cost $9,995, although you'll be still able to find perfectly working second-hand iPhone 4 and Samsung 5 devices.
The aging Greta Thunberg will be still heading UN which will be located by then in Norway.
In the past week, more than 69 percent of the total net electricity generation in Germany came from renewable energies, reported by Fraunhofer Institute. That was also a record. The share of wind energy in electricity generation was more than 55 percent.
The recent strong winds in Europe helped to generate more electricity from the wind farms.If we can do away with night, just think of all the free electricity we could make.
https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/sturm-yulia-blaest-windstrom-zu-neuem-rekord-a-14cff10f-fa1f-45e9-be17-4f167de04c06
Cities with more people tend to produce less CO2. Well, maybe.
NASA satellite offers urban carbon dioxide insights
https://phys.org/news/2020-03-nasa-satellite-urban-carbon-dioxide.html
The world’s largest financier of fossil fuels has warned clients that the climate crisis threatens the survival of humanity and that the planet is on an unsustainable trajectory.
The JP Morgan report on the economic risks of human-caused global heating said climate policy had to change or else the world faced irreversible consequences.
The study implicitly condemns the US bank’s own investment strategy and highlights growing concerns among major Wall Street institutions about the financial and reputational risks of continued funding of carbon-intensive industries, such as oil and gas.
The calculations conclude that this year Germany-wide could be 1.0 to 1.5 degrees warmer than the average of the reference period between 1981 and 2010. The average temperature in the years 2025 to 2029 will be particularly in the west and East Germany are even 1.5 to 2.0 degrees higher. Globally speaking, the past year was, according to the DWD, the second warmest since global records began in 1850. The decade 2010 to 2019 was therefore the historically warmest.
Drought must be expected in the next five years. The forecasts are particularly important for agriculture and forestry.
"We are the first generation to measure, observe and scientifically analyze the effects of man-made climate change so comprehensively," said Gerhard Adrian, President of the DWD and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). "This knowledge is in the world and can no longer be swept under the table."
Adrian urged more engagement in the fight against climate change. The greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere is still increasing, the global mean temperature continues to rise and the global sea level is increasing. "All the important adjustment screws are still turning in the wrong direction.
JP Morgan economists are concerned about the Covid-19 crisis, but they worry even more about the effects of global warming.Les, I hate to say this. But climate change spending is over. No one is going to care about it as everyone will be looking for a job. Government will have no money to spend on alternate resources to carbon fuels. They'll be spending on Social Security payments and unemployment checks. Paris Accord is over. Period. On the good side, with less business, there will be less carbon burning so less CO2.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/21/jp-morgan-economists-warn-climate-crisis-threat-human-race
Les, I hate to say this. But climate change spending is over. No one is going to care about it as everyone will be looking for a job. Government will have no money to spend on alternate resources to carbon fuels. They'll be spending on Social Security payments and unemployment checks. Paris Accord is over. Period. On the good side, with less business, there will be less carbon burning so less CO2.
I'm willing to bet that they'll still find the money to buy military armaments and hire lobbiests to petition for lower taxes. Always money magically available for that.I'm talking about all countries, not just the USA. Military spending will decrease too. EUrope doesn;t want to spend the 2% required by NATO. With lower GDP's they're going to want to spend even less. America will pull out of Europe to save money. ALl sorts of things no one predicted can happen when things go south. If we don't get back to work, somehow, the cure might be worse than the disease. Joe is right.
Corona crisis makes weather forecasts more uncertain - translated from an article in German Spiegel.
Because air traffic has largely ceased due to the Corona crisis, weather forecasts and climate observations are becoming more difficult. The weather models lack data that normally comes from sensors on aircraft. "If even less weather data is provided by aircraft and this over a longer period of time, the reliability of weather forecasts is likely to decrease," said Lars Peter Riishojgaard, group leader at the World Weather Organization (WMO), in Geneva. Weather conditions are also more difficult to predict, according to WMO. Above all, this would pose a risk to countries that need to prepare in advance to prepare for weather disasters.
Sensors on around 3,000 specially equipped commercial aircraft usually provide data on temperature, wind speed and direction, humidity and turbulence. This data is now missing. The WMO reports a drastic slump for Europe in March, from more than 700,000 to a few thousand weather data per day.
In addition to airplanes, almost 70 weather satellites and more than 10,000 ground stations provide data, according to the WMO. This is largely automated in industrialized countries - but if the crisis persists, there is a risk that the systems could fail due to lack of maintenance and repair. In developing countries, a lot of measurement data would be recorded manually. These observations have already decreased significantly in the past few weeks.
This has nothing to do with weather extremes, but with the forecast difficulties...
Who cares? We are stuck in homes anyway ;)
Who cares? We are stuck in homes anyway ;)
Poor air quality reduces immunity ..., just saying.
So does aging.....
So does aging.....
It adds up. Average life expectancy is reduced by 13 months in my country, due to Particulate Matter emissions (PM10, and more importantly PM2.5). The number of Asthma cases at young ages is increasing disproportionally.Fortunately, those thirteen months would have come at the end when you're drooling, pissing in your pants, are impotent, and can't remember anything anyway. So if you were alive, you'd be thankful you're dead.
Fortunately, those thirteen months would have come at the end when you're drooling, pissing in your pants, are impotent, and can't remember anything anyway. So if you were alive, you'd be thankful you're dead.
No, the issues develop already from a young age, and affects one's well-being throughout life. Productivity is reduced, people's health is reduced, and it leads to all sorts of deceases like heart problems and kidney failure, to name a few. It also reduces the immune system's ability to fend off or reduce the severity of viruses and bacterial infections.Yes, and we are all going to die! Oops, we are. Come on Bart, a little optimism is something we all can use nowadays.
No, the issues develop already from a young age, and affects one's well-being throughout life. Productivity is reduced, people's health is reduced, and it leads to all sorts of deceases like heart problems and kidney failure, to name a few. It also reduces the immune system's ability to fend off or reduce the severity of viruses and bacterial infections.Did you ever get drunk, black out and have a great time you didn't remember? :)
The arrival of spring does not only affect the behaviour of a virus, however. It also produces changes in the human immune system, other researchers point out. “Our immune system displays a daily rhythm, but what is less known is how this varies from season to season,” said immunologist Natalie Riddell at Surrey University.
To find out, Riddell and other researchers at Surrey and Columbia Universities have been studying immune changes in humans at different seasons and different times of day. Biological samples were taken from volunteers at the winter and summer solstices and the spring and autumn equinoxes. Initial findings suggest a subset of white blood cells that play a key role in the immune system appear to be elevated at certain times of day, indicating that the system responds differently at varying times. For example, B cells that produce antibodies were found to be elevated at night.
Impact of seasons on cell rhythms is still under investigation, added the study’s leader, Micaela Martinez of Columbia University. Results would be of considerable importance, she added. “Knowing the vulnerabilities of our body to diseases and viruses across the year could inform the timing of vaccination campaigns that will help us eradicate infections.”
A new study of the common coronaviruses (prior to Covid-19) - HCoV-NL63, HCoV-OC43 and HCoV-229E - was published last week by scientists at University College London. By analysing samples from multiple years they found high rates of coronavirus infections in winter, while in summer they were very low. Other studies have also shown coronaviruses are seasonal in behaviour in temperate climates. However, they also found that the virus affected also the human immune system.So how much is Covid-19 affected by season? There are cases in the Southern as well as the Northern Hemisphere where season are opposite one another.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/05/scientists-ask-could-summer-heat-help-beat-covid-19
Long-term exposure to air pollution is linked to significantly higher rates of death from Covid-19 according to a new study.
Researchers from the Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health looked at 3,080 counties in the US and found a 15 per cent increase in the death rate from Covid-19 from an extra 1 microgram per cubic metre of fine particulate matter, known as PM2.5.
It suggests that 248 deaths from the disease in Manhattan in the period until April 4 could have been avoided by a decrease in pollution.
Polluted air causes more Covid-19 deaths. Harvard study, which is still in the peer review process, shows a clear link between pollution and deaths from Covid-19.So does smoking pot or cigarettes. Emphysema, COPD etc are bad things to have if you get this disease. It's why they need ventilators to help people breathe. But even with them, people die from asphyxiation, I guess.
The study hypothesises that “because long-term exposure to PM2.5 (atmospheric particulate matter that have a diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers) adversely affects the respiratory and cardiovascular system, it can also exacerbate the severity of the COVID-19.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/08/air-pollution-linked-higher-rates-death-covid-19/
Polluted air causes more Covid-19 deaths. Harvard study, which is still in the peer review process, shows a clear link between pollution and deaths from Covid-19.
The study hypothesises that “because long-term exposure to PM2.5 (atmospheric particulate matter that have a diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers) adversely affects the respiratory and cardiovascular system, it can also exacerbate the severity of the COVID-19.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/04/08/air-pollution-linked-higher-rates-death-covid-19/
So does smoking pot or cigarettes. Emphysema, COPD etc are bad things to have if you get this disease. It's why they need ventilators to help people breathe. But even with them, people die from asphyxiation, I guess.
“And it turns out that if climate change remains on the current track, then a lot more will change in the coming 50 years than have changed in the past 6,000.”
“It’s a kind of no-go area to talk about climate migration,” Dr. Scheffer said. But the possibility that hundreds of millions of people may be forced to move to cooler areas means that society “needs to think about how we can accommodate as much as we can.”
Did you ever get drunk, black out and have a great time you didn't remember? :)
New study by Dutch scientists warns that as the climate continues to warm over the next half-century, up to one-third of the world’s population is likely to live in areas that are considered unsuitably hot for humans. In other words, there will be massive migrations from the hot areas to cooler regions.Les, you're going to have a lot of new neighbors.
(https://cdn.prod.www.spiegel.de/images/79ea5c29-466f-4d96-a1a5-7e8439df600d_w948_r1.77_fpx30_fpy55.01.jpg)
Parched earth in South Africa - credit: Mike Hutchings/ REUTERS
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/04/climate/heat-temperatures-climate-change.html
Actually no....... Have I missed out? :)I don't recall.
Jim
This fantastical sea creature helps remove planet-warming gases from the atmosphere
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-06-07/deep-sea-mucus-larvacean
I've just come across a revealing chart which shows that the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels has not fallen or slowed down during the past few months as a result of the significant reduction in economic activity.
This implies that the rise in CO2 levels might be mostly due to natural factors rather than human induced emissions from fossil fuels.
Levels of air pollutants and warming gases over some cities and regions are showing significant drops as coronavirus impacts work and travel.
Researchers in New York told the BBC their early results showed carbon monoxide mainly from cars had been reduced by nearly 50% compared with last year.
Emissions of the planet-heating gas CO2 have also fallen sharply.
I've just come across a revealing chart which shows that the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels has not fallen or slowed down during the past few months as a result of the significant reduction in economic activity.For balance, I would like to look at data and analysis from someone other than a noted climate change skeptic like Dr. Roy Spencer before drawing a conclusion.
This implies that the rise in CO2 levels might be mostly due to natural factors rather than human induced emissions from fossil fuels.
I've just come across a revealing chart which shows that the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels has not fallen or slowed down during the past few months as a result of the significant reduction in economic activity.
That's not what I've been reading.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-51944780
For balance, I would like to look at data and analysis from someone other than a noted climate change skeptic like Dr. Roy Spencer before drawing a conclusion.
I get a sense from some of the replies, that the confusion still continues about the difference between polluting gases and non-polluting gases.
I've just come across a revealing chart which shows that the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels has not fallen or slowed down during the past few months as a result of the significant reduction in economic activity.That's Bart's favorite chart. :) Of course, NOAA claims you'd need at least 6 months of lowered CO2 production to see a difference in this measurement. Very convenient.
This implies that the rise in CO2 levels might be mostly due to natural factors rather than human induced emissions from fossil fuels.
I get a sense from some of the replies, that the confusion still continues about the difference between polluting gases and non-polluting gases.The haze around NYC usually rises to 1000-2000 feet. It's really noticeable from an airplane seat when you take off and land. It would be interesting to see what the sky looks now if you could find a plane to fly in.
Densely populated areas tend to have much more pollution than remote areas, mainly due to the huge number of polluting vehicles. As a result of the economic slow down resulting from Covid-19 measures, the air in cities has become noticeably cleaner, especially in highly polluted countries such as India where in some places people for the first time can get a clear view of the near-by Himalayan mountains.
However, CO2 is a perfectly clear and odourless gas; not a pollutant at current levels.
Kayrros estimates that at any given time, there are about 100 high-volume methane leaks around the world. The good news is that once identified, a methane leak is relatively easy to stop. The International Energy Agency estimates that about 75% of current worldwide methane emissions could be avoided—about 40% of that at no net cost. Leaks cost the industry about $30 billion a year in lost revenue, so there are strong incentives for gas companies to detect them early.
Reducing methane emissions by 40% would have an effect in global warming equivalent to the immediate shutdown of 60% of the world’s coal-fired power plants, according to the IEA. “Reducing CO₂ emissions is important for reducing the magnitude of climate change. Reducing methane emissions is important to reduce the rate of climate change."
A prolonged heatwave in Siberia is “undoubtedly alarming”, climate scientists have said. ... On a global scale, the Siberian heat is helping push the world towards its hottest year on record in 2020, despite a temporary dip in carbon emissions owing to the coronavirus pandemic.
Russian towns in the Arctic circle have recorded extraordinary temperatures, with Nizhnyaya Pesha hitting 30C on 9 June and Khatanga, which usually has daytime temperatures of around 0C at this time of year, hitting 25C on 22 May. The previous record was 12C.
In May, surface temperatures in parts of Siberia were up to 10C above average, according to the EU’s Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S). Martin Stendel, of the Danish Meteorological Institute, said the abnormal May temperatures seen in north-west Siberia would be likely to happen just once in 100,000 years without human-caused global heating.
Thawing permafrost was at least partly to blame for a spill of diesel fuel in Siberia this month that led Putin to declare a state of emergency. The supports of the storage tank suddenly sank, according to its operators; green groups said ageing and poorly maintained infrastructure was also to blame.
More ticks.Indeed, the ticks and Lyme disease are spreading out in Ontario, especially in the Thousand Islands area.
Indeed, the ticks and Lyme disease are spreading out in Ontario, especially in the Thousand Islands area.
Surprisingly, in my neighbourhood we don't have now as many mosquitoes as in the previous summers. Most probably because of the dry hot weather. Could be different in the bush country.
...but no forest fires.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2014/12/05/china-used-more-concrete-in-3-years-than-the-u-s-used-in-the-entire-20th-century-infographic/#45e90b004131Yet the Paris Accord requires no limitation on China until 2030 although they produce 30% of the world's total CO2.
Concrete production is extremely CO2 intensive. China used more concrete in three years than the USA used in the entire 20th century.
The seriousness of excessive heat cannot be overstated. Although hurricanes and tornadoes gain the most notoriety in the world of weather, many are surprised to learn that it is heat that is the top weather killer.
Extreme temperatures coupled with high humidity flowing from the Gulf of Mexico are coming to the central and southern US. Temperatures in Dallas will be hotter than in Death Valley, California. Dallas reach a heat index of 110 degrees both on Wednesday and Thursday afternoon.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/01/weather/deadly-heat-forecast-central-us-texas/index.html
I've been to Dallas and Austin in the middle of the summer and it was indeed hot.
But 110-113F temperatures mentioned in your link were the absolute record temperatures which occurred in the last 100 years only a few times. It looks like those records might be exceeded this year.
Generally speaking, 2020 has been a hell of a year. But in Siberia, there is an additional reason to make comparisons to the inferno: record-breaking warmth and its consequences. Wildfires have burned about 8,000 square miles, aided by a bumper crop of silk moths consuming the needles off conifers. And slumping permafrost also contributed to a massive diesel spill when a tank on unstable ground burst.
The immediate cause of this extreme year was last winter’s jet stream pattern, which kept Siberia mild from later winter into spring, melting ice and snow early and boosting the warmth further. Then in June, a stubborn high pressure set up, as a northward wiggle of the jet stream brought warmer air from the south into Siberia. It was during this heatwave that the Russian town of Verkhoyansk apparently hit 38°C (100°F)—a first for any station above the Arctic Circle.
As with many extreme weather events in recent years, a team of scientists has completed a rapid analysis of the role of climate change in all this. The scientists analyzed both that record high temperature and the warm January-to-June across the region, concluding “in both cases that this event would have effectively been impossible without human-induced climate change.”
Well thats how weather goes. :)
You can't really discuss the subject intelligently with someone until they have the ability to understand the meaning of words like weather and climate. For those that can't understand words, you can always try using elementary school picture examples... https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/infographic-weather-versus-climate-illustrated-with-clothes.png (https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/sites/default/files/infographic-weather-versus-climate-illustrated-with-clothes.png)
Sadly, sometimes even that won't help!
I think the general intelligence of the readers of this forum is greater than you imply with that post.
Even that politically biased, great authority on climate, the IPCC,
Maybe
Aah - maybe not.
Which part is 'maybe not'? That the IPCC is a great authority on climate change, or that they are politically biased (to some extent), or both? ;)
The "maybe not" referred to the assumption that members of the forum are intelligent.
Many intelligent people are very gullible. They show no discernment.
And some ignorant people try to conceal their ignorance with unfounded scepticism.
The "maybe not" referred to the assumption that members of the forum are intelligent.
Oh! I get it! This is 'climate change', and the last thing we want to do is undermine the 'alarmism' by presenting facts and rational explanations. ;D
Scientists aren't economists. The problem with climate change science and the new problem with coronavirus, is that there are more than one side of the issues. While scientists can recommend what has to be done to lessen the damage physically and medically, they're not addressing the whole issue. There are huge economic problems created. These have to be addressed as well. For example, if you spend trillions as being recommended in the US now by presidential candidates, you have that much less money to spend on other issues: infrastructure, cancer research, homeless, the poor, etc. In fact, the more you spend on climate change, the higher fossil prices will go making it even harder for the poor to heat and cool their homes. Similar issue apply to Covid relief, but that's for a different thread. Unfortunately, little attention is being made on the economic costs and tradeoffs of these issues.
I think I have heard this somewhere before.
While scientists can recommend what has to be done to lessen the damage physically and medically, they're not addressing the whole issue. There are huge economic problems created.
Yes there are, but economic problems are a luxury item if you're dead. Meanwhile nothing gets done because halfwits try to play down the real extent of the global warming issue.How do you earn a living?
Coronavirus is a perfect metaphor but one you can see play out on a scale of days - the US does nothing while politicians and their stooges yap on about masks and bleach, meanwhile people are dying in their tens of thousands. Wake up!!
How do you earn a living?
What's the Latin name for parsley?
For example, if you spend trillions as being recommended in the US now by presidential candidates, you have that much less money to spend on other issues: infrastructure, cancer research, homeless, the poor, etc.
Alan, that is a false concept. It may be true for a household budget, but it's not true for governments or their accounting systems. Your evaluation assumes constant revenue.Than let's print even trillions more and make everyone rich. That doesn't work. Printing devalues currency. That means both people and governments have less to spend as prices eventually go up. Additional taxes are required putting a burden on the economy. Jobs are lost. Earnings and taxes go down. There's no free lunxh.
Than let's print even trillions more and make everyone rich. That doesn't work. Printing devalues currency. That means both people and governments have less to spend as prices eventually go up. Additional taxes are required putting a burden on the economy. Jobs are lost. Earnings and taxes go down. There's no free lunxh.
Meanwhile, back on topic, it is really hot here. The heat index is over 100. I'm not planning to go out for the rest of the day. I can't remember if that is because of the heat or the cornonavirus. Doesn't matter really. And now they say that polar bears will go extinct. That is not very cheerful news.They'll change their diet and stop eating seals. That will be good for seals.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/polar-bears-could-disappear-2100-due-melting-ice-climate-change-n1234439
What he was trying to tell you, I think, was that it is not a zero-sum game. It never has been. That is at the heart of Milton Friedman's (and many others') views. Don't you believe Milton?Let Peter explain what he was saying. I don't think it has to do with what you said which I wasn't addressing either.
The environmental conversation, of which climate change is a part, will get nowhere unless we eliminate the absurd and false "environment vs economy" pseudo-debate. Without a sustainable environment there will be NO ECONOMY. The environment is the economy. Approaching this from the viewpoint that the two are in opposition is worse than pointless.
It is not true that environmental regulations harm the economy. That is stupid. Is there any point making cheaper running shoes if part of your population dies from the toxins that are used to make them gets into the water supply? The environmental industry is itself part of the "economy". The people working in those industries, the products they make, that all is part of GDP.
We have had environmental regulations of one sort or another since the 1960s or so. Has the economy collapsed in that time? Has the world ended? I may be wrong but things have been going fairly well the world over during that time.
Don't you like breathing clean air. Don't you think that clean water is important for the "economy".
They'll change their diet and stop eating seals. That will be good for seals.
Yeah, the bears should start eating sea weeds. However, a bigger problem would be the increased numbers of seals, which would eat more fish.My wife would love a seal fur coat.
They'll change their diet and stop eating seals. That will be good for seals.
They'll change their diet and stop eating seals. That will be good for seals.
That's pretty glib. It sounds like you don't give a damn on way or the other.First off the so-called study was not based on actual count but rather some formula the scientists made up. I'd rather accept a previous study where actual counts of polar bear were done. In that study, only a couple of areas had some decline in population while the rest of the population zones either increased or stayed the same. Anyone can create an algorithm to prove what you want to prove. More hype that those pushing climate change want to use..
Let Peter explain what he was saying.
Second, I'm not being glib. The idea that bears would disappear because of climate change leaves no room for Darwin.Sure it does. Under Darwin not all species adapt and survive. Some don't adapt and die out. That why they call it survival of the fittest. Why do you believe that polar bears will adapt and survive rather than not adapt and die out, particularly given the time scale involved?
Sure it does. Under Darwin not all species adapt and survive. Some don't adapt and die out. That why they call it survival of the fittest. Why do you believe that polar bears will adapt and survive rather than not adapt and die out, particularly given the time scale involved?You're assuming they're dying out. The study referred to is a farce. The previous study showed they're doing well.
You're assuming they're dying out. The study referred to is a farce. The previous study showed they're doing well.
Today, though, the sea bears’ future around Churchill looks bleak. In Churchill and the surrounding area (called the Western Hudson Bay), the bears’ population is plunging. The last two decades have been particularly harsh. “The population has declined substantially since the late nineties by 30 percent,” said Evan Richardson, a research scientist for Environment and Climate Change Canada, a government agency. What was once a population of 1,200 bears is now 800, and falling.
Facts and rational explanations backed by the continual testing and retesting of theory based on evidence produced by the collection of data from measurement, experiment, and observation is what you get from science and its methods. This applies to all sciences be they climate, medicine, chemistry, physics, biology, etc.
Hope I've managed to clarify the situation for you. ;)
However, not all subjects or situations lend themselves to this rigorous process of testing and retesting under controlled conditions because of the enormous complexity and chaotic nature of the situation, and/or because of the numerous influencing factors which are either unknown or not sufficiently understood, and/or because of the long time periods involved before results can be observed.
Your profound mistrust of science is exceeded only by your misunderstanding of it.
As for climate science and the various fields of scientific research which are incorporated into it, like all fields of science there is much that is unknown and yet to be learned and discovered. That's what makes science so fascinating and exciting for those engaged in it.
If anyone is interested in the truth about your quote from the 1996 article. Professor Stephen H. Schneider wrote a reply to the publisher complete with footnotes. Since you have attributed a quote to him, it would be useful to have his full thoughts on the matter. It can be found here... https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/199608/environmental.cfm
The argument about polar bears is false by proven surveys done counting bears in the various zones around the Arctic.
The scientists are lying to you. Do you really believe scientists were out in the snow freezing their asses off counting bears? They just made up the numbers so they could get back inside where it was warm. They skewered the results so they could make it a feel good story. Everybody loves polar bears. Except the seals of course. But the polar bears are doing something about that. They are going vegetarian. That's what I read anyway. It was on the internet so it must be true.Well, you're right. Just which scientists should we believe? Mine at least said they counted the bears. Your's admitted they just made up an algorithm in their heads.
Well, you're right. Just which scientists should we believe? Mine at least said they counted the bears.
You can trust me. I counted the bears too.The Myth That the Polar Bear Population Is Declining
The Myth That the Polar Bear Population Is Declining
The story of a resurgent polar bear population deserves to be told and applauded.
Monday, September 9, 2019
Quote: "Data from conservation groups and the government show that the polar bear population is roughly five times what it was in the 1950s and three or four times what it was in the 1970s when polar bears became protected under international treaty.
In fact, though polar bears were placed under the protection of the Endangered Species Act in 2008 over concerns that its Arctic hunting grounds were being reduced by a warming climate, the polar bear population has been stable for the last three decades."
https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-polar-bear-population-is-declining/
So according to the author, what will the effect of climate change be on the polar bear population, if any, at the turn of the century?I'd be more concerned about how the human race will be doing around the turn of the century. I'm sure the bears will be fine. :)
I'd be more concerned about how the human race will be doing around the turn of the century. I'm sure the bears will be fine. :)
You are not very good at hiding the fact that you are not answering the question. But it comes as no great surprise to anyone around here.I have no idea what the author thinks about the bear population around the turn of the century. My view is they'll be fine. I'd be more concerned with how we'll be doing next year because of Covid 19.
I have no idea what the author thinks about the bear population around the turn of the century.
I have no idea what the author thinks about the bear population around the turn of the century. My view is they'll be fine. I'd be more concerned with how we'll be doing next year because of Covid 19.
Yeah, actually reading the articles you link to is kind of burdensome.Frank, I read the article again. It says nothing about what's going to happen at the turn of the century. It does say that the polar bears are doing great, have expanded their numbers. Maybe another read would help you. https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-polar-bear-population-is-declining/
Frank, I read the article again. It says nothing about what's going to happen at the turn of the century. It does say that the polar bears are doing great, have expanded their numbers. Maybe another read would help you. https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-polar-bear-population-is-declining/Exactly. It is irrelevant to the discussion of the effect of climate change on the polar bear.
Exactly. It is irrelevant to the discussion of the effect of climate change on the polar bear.You changed the goal posts. The argument presented for year since the climate change debate started was that polar bears were already decreasing in population due to global warming. That's false. It's lies and hysteria like this that make thinking people doubt the whole argument.
I don't expect you to reply because...
However, as a result of my general interest in science and my great respect for the 'methodology of science', I began doing internet searches to find answers to some puzzling issues that were never raised during the media interviews of climate scientists.
there are many issues which caused me to change my mind as a result of my own investigations.
because it's clear I have successfully debunked...
your alarmists arguments
and it must be very upsetting for you. :(
Because I'm wholly unimpressed by your assertions...You presented no facts in your counter-argument against Ray's factual points and statistics, only insults. You could do better than that.
and completely underwhelmed by your efforts and findings as a scientific investigator from the University of Google when compared to actual scientists working for years in their fields.
*As an aside, to enhance your credibility, you might want to focus more of your "investigations" on the voluminous reams of data scientists have collected rather than "media interviews of climate scientists" if you intend to undermine their credibility or findings. There are a great many scientists and researchers around the world contributing to the field; few of them do media interviews.
Debunked what? I wrote that science has always had to contend with the same issues that you point to as problematic for climate scientists.
What arguments? I never presented any scientific findings or conclusions. Again, I wrote that science has has always engaged with "enormous complexity", "numerous influencing factors", "chaotic nature", "factors which are either unknown or not sufficiently understood", and most of all uncertainty. If that's what you consider to be "alarmists arguments", so be it.
I'm feeling cool, calm, and collected, but your concern is appreciated as always. Although I was a bit disgusted and disappointed by your desire to bolster your argument by attempting to diminish the reputation for honest science and a lifetime of work by a long deceased but distinguished and respected scientist with an isolated quote from an article in the 1980s, which you presented without context from an article in the 90s which ignored the original context in which he was discussing his frustration and distaste for "soundbite science and journalism by pointing out that nobody gets enough time in the media either to cover all the caveats in depth, (i.e., "being honest") or to present all the plausible threats (i.e., "being effective")" and without presenting his reply to the article's author who initially falsely embellished, then retracted, then purposely distorted the original context in his usage of the quote. I understand that you likely will defend the way in which you used it until your last breath and will enjoy the endless repetition of it, but it does you no good service. This type of tactic generally harms the practitioner more than the target in the long run.
*As an aside, to enhance your credibility, you might want to focus more of your "investigations" on the voluminous reams of data scientists have collected rather than "media interviews of climate scientists" if you intend to undermine their credibility or findings. There are a great many scientists and researchers around the world contributing to the field; few of them do media interviews.
You presented no facts in your counter-argument against Ray's factual points and statistics, only insults. You could do better than that.
I don't expect you to reply because it's clear I have successfully debunked your alarmists arguments, and it must be very upsetting for you. :(
All of my responses have been addressed to the broader topic of whether or not science has always had to contend with the same issues that he points to as problematic for climate scientists.
Are you listening, Greta Thunberg? ;D
There is no reason for her to listen to your opinions. She, like everyone else, has access to information from actual scientists working in the field.Thinking of depending on experts reminds me of a quotation:
Take Dr. Jenkins as an example of where to look for expert opinion and where not... https://undsci.berkeley.edu/us101/balance (https://undsci.berkeley.edu/images/us101/balance.gif)
Thinking of depending on experts reminds me of a quotation:
"I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University."
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Got it? ;)
"I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to William F. Buckley, Jr."Well, I agree with that.
Me
Not sure what this means for the current issues regarding CO2. Maybe Ray can add his evaluation.
From the abstract of the nature.com article you linked:Hawaii is probably a main example of underseas volcanoes. Each of the islands is another volcano. Each were formed in sequence with the Big Island of Hawaii still active and the largest. There's a new one forming east of it now. The other Hawaiian Islands like Maui, Oahu, Kauai further west went dormant long ago. Apparently there's a hot spot in the earth's crust. As the continental plates move, these islands were formed in sequence. It was fascinating to visit the volcanoes when my wife and I cruised there.
"Ocean circulation critically affects the global climate and atmospheric carbon dioxide through redistribution of heat and carbon in the Earth system. Despite intensive research, the nature of past ocean circulation changes remains elusive."
This is obviously another complex issue which climate scientists struggle to understand. As I understand, the oceans store far more heat and carbon than the atmosphere and the biosphere of the land combined.
What I find fascinating is the estimated number of submarine volcanoes on the ocean floors. The estimates vary from 1 million to 3 million, but we don't really know. Because many of the volcanoes are at great depth in the oceans, there could be half a dozen or more erupting at this very moment, but no-one is aware of the eruptions, not even Greta Thunberg. ;)
"More than 70 percent of all volcanic eruptions occur underwater and scientists are in the dark when it comes to understanding underwater volcanoes because the eruptions are cloaked from view by thousands of feet of water."
https://ocean.si.edu/holding-tank/vents-volcanoes/mystery-underwater-volcano
Hawaii is probably a main example of underseas volcanoes. Each of the islands is another volcano. Each were formed in sequence with the Big Island of Hawaii still active and the largest. There's a new one forming east of it now. The other Hawaiian Islands like Maui, Oahu, Kauai further west went dormant long ago. Apparently there's a hot spot in the earth's crust. As the continental plates move, these islands were formed in sequence. It was fascinating to visit the volcanoes when my wife and I cruised there.
What's also interesting is that even when volcanoes appear inactive, they are usually surrounded by fissures and cracks which are continuously emitting CO2. This tends not to be noticed or measured by scientists in the field.
This tends not to be noticed or measured by scientists in the field.
Says you. And since you are suggesting it's an issue, how much of this affects the atmospheric increase in CO2 concentration?
This is what the internet gives us. Spare time web surfing expertise that is believed to be more insightful than that of the actual experts who have invested their lives into work, research, and study.
There are numerous scientists that "notice" and are actively engaged in research. As more is learned, it is incorporated into the body of knowledge created by actual scientists that do real science.
Exactly, Real science starts with observations,
followed by thorough, peer-reviewed, analysis, AKA "the scientific method".
Only too many (anonymous) folks 'observe' (or only read controversial blog posts, or references to those), but real scientists take such clues to do something useful to society.
Ray, you seem to be dodging the question: How much of this (submarine volcano eruptions) affects the atmospheric increase in CO2 concentration?
Dodging?? If it's not known how many volcanoes on the sea floor are erupting, nor how much CO2 is being emitted from vents and fissures on the ocean floor as well as the dry land, how is it possible to determine the effect of such emissions on atmospheric increases in CO2?
One can only speculate, or hypothesize. However, I do understand that in a warmer climate the sea will tend to absorb less CO2 from the atmosphere.
"One can only speculate..." ?
No, you can study it. I suspect people already have.
Don't be silly! One can't study something that hasn't been observed or detected. Read my posts before commenting. Crikey!
Dodging?? If it's not known how many volcanoes on the sea floor are erupting, nor how much CO2 is being emitted from vents and fissures on the ocean floor as well as the dry land, how is it possible to determine the effect of such emissions on atmospheric increases in CO2?
One can only speculate, or hypothesize. However, I do understand that in a warmer climate the sea will tend to absorb less CO2 from the atmosphere.
All human activity starts with observations, as soon as a child is born, and involves learned interpretations of those observations, whether one is a scientist or not.If Newton worked at Cook University, they would have sacked him too.
Try being more precise. Sometimes followed by thorough, peer-reviewed analysis, but not always, would be more correct. Scientists are also human, and can be incompetent, biased, and even corrupt, just as non-scientists sometimes are.
Also, when the subject of scientific investigation is complex, non-linear and chaotic, it might not be possible for the the peer-review process to meet those ideal standards of the 'scientific methodology'. The peer reviewer then has the option of either being scientifically honest, or failing to mention the "ifs, buts, and doubts", as Professor Schneider explained.
An example of what can happen when a scientist truthfully expresses what he really thinks about the quality of the research relating to climate, is what happened to Professor Peter Ridd who used to be a Professor of Physics at James Cook University in North Queensland.
Ridd, having a background in Physics, which is one of the 'Hard Sciences' which requires the most rigorous application of the true 'methodology of science', criticized the quality of the research relating to the effects of climate change on the Great Barrier Reef. He claimed that much of the research was not being properly checked, tested or replicated through the peer review process.
He was sacked by the university for not toeing the line. So he took the university to court, and won his case. The university was ordered to pay Ridd A$1.2 million in compensation.
However, the university made an appeal to the higher court, and unfortunately for Ridd, won the appeal (which I'm sure will make 'climate alarmist' like you, Bart, very happy :D ).
The following Quadrant site addressed this issue, before the court decision was reversed.
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2019/04/the-ridd-case-much-more-than-just-one-mans-victory/
The following quote represents my own personal view quite well.
"A key factor in the success of science has been the subjection of any important new claims to skepticism and verification. To a large extent in environmental research, such testing has been replaced by claims of authority and consensus. This decidedly anti-scientific perspective has been greatly facilitated by a prevailing acceptance in academia of a postmodern philosophical view which denies the existence of any objective truth. In its place is the notion of a political correctness deemed self-obvious to all right-thinking persons and which it is “unethical” even to question. From this perspective it is not too difficult to excuse a lie if it supports what is perceived to be a higher truth. To dissent with any of this makes one a “denier” which is seen as intellectually equivalent to believing in a flat Earth and morally equivalent to denying the Holocaust."
What do you mean by 'real scientists'? Anyone who has a scientific degree and is working in a laboratory, whether commercially funded or government funded, in order to support his family and children, and/or achieve fame?
On the issue of submarine volcanoes, are the following sites associated with 'real scientists'? Or is it all bunkum?
http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/book/export/html/138
"If an estimate of 4,000 volcanoes per million square kilometers on the floor of the Pacific Ocean is extrapolated for all the oceans then there are more than a million submarine (underwater) volcanoes.
If the global estimate of one million submarine volcanoes is correct perhaps many thousands of these volcanoes are active. In contrast, few submarine volcanoes are caught in the process of erupting. Of the nearly 8,000 known volcanic eruptions in the last 10,000 years only about 300 were submarine. From 1975 to 1985, 160 volcanoes erupted but only 24 of these were submarine. Most of these submarine eruptions were in shallow water."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-020-0603-4
"The majority of Earth’s volcanic eruptions occur beneath the sea, but the limited number of direct observations and samples limits our understanding of these unseen events."
So are you saying that there are now more volcanoes on the ocean floor emitting CO2 than there were during the Ice Age, and that accounts for the rising temperature of the earth, not mankind's activity? If true, it still seems to me a lot easier to shift from fossil fuels to wind and solar than try to figure out how to stopper up all those volcanoes.Curious? Does anyone know how the polar bears survived the last warming period before the last Ice Age? If they did it once, maybe multiple times as there were many warming periods and Ice Ages, why shouldn't they survive the current warming? After all, they're very smart, adaptable, and I'm sure they haven't eaten seal only throughout their histories. Maybe they'll move south and eat berries, salmon, and people.
One more thing: you keep saying "estimate". When we were talking about polar bears, Alan told me I had to actually count them, not rely on some algorithm a scientist thought up in his head. It seems to me that what goes for polar bears ought to go for volcanoes. You are just going to have to do the heavy lifting and count them. No one said being a scientist was easy. I just wanted to give you a heads up that you might get some push-back from Alan on this.
Curious? Does anyone know how the polar bears survived the last warming period before the last Ice Age? If they did it once, maybe multiple times as there were many warming periods and Ice Ages, why shouldn't they survive the current warming? After all, they're very smart, adaptable, and I'm sure they haven't eaten seal only throughout their histories. Maybe they'll move south and eat berries, salmon, and people.
How hot did it get during the warming periods you are talking about?Just google and you will know. Here's one result: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record
How hot did it get during the warming periods you are talking about?I don't know. Maybe Ray does. But I found this study how the Antarctic region warmed up in multiples over the rest of the earth. The study assumes both polar regions warmed similarly. If so, how did the bears survive before? There had to be a lot less Arctic sea ice then than now. Somehow, I think the bears figured it out and managed. For all we know, the brown bear might just be a former polar bear or vice versa.
If so, how did the bears survive before?
Just google and you will know. Here's one result: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_recordHere's a graph from that article. What I find interesting is that there were sudden jumps in temperature in the Antarctic and Greenland around 12,000 years ago, long before the industrial age. What accounted for that? Could other natural changes be happening recently that account for the relatively minor blips of rise recently? What accounts for all the other changes throughout geologic history? Are there any coincidental changes happening now that are being ascribed to CO2 that are actually caused for other reasons or in addition to CO2 (undersea volcanoes, sun spots, other?)?
Here's a graph from that article. What I find interesting is that there were sudden jumps in temperature in the Antarctic and Greenland around 12,000 years ago, long before the industrial age. What accounted for that? Could other natural changes be happening recently that account for the relatively minor blips of rise recently? What accounts for all the other changes throughout geologic history? Are there any coincidental changes happening now that are being ascribed to CO2 that are actually caused for other reasons or in addition to CO2 (undersea volcanoes, sun spots, other?)?
You asked so many questions there it reminds me of the narrator at the end of a Batman episode right before he asks you to tune in tomorrow nigh to find out.Well if you don't have the answers, why don't you step aside and let others. Of course, my question raises doubt about the efficacy of warming due to CO2. So naturally you make fun of the questions.
The peer reviewer then has the option of either being scientifically honest, or failing to mention the "ifs, buts, and doubts", as Professor Schneider explained.
Curious? Does anyone know how the polar bears survived the last warming period before the last Ice Age? If they did it once, maybe multiple times as there were many warming periods and Ice Ages, why shouldn't they survive the current warming? After all, they're very smart, adaptable, and I'm sure they haven't eaten seal only throughout their histories. Maybe they'll move south and eat berries, salmon, and people.
Well if you don't have the answers, why don't you step aside and let others. Of course, my question raises doubt about the efficacy of warming due to CO2. So naturally you make fun of the questions.
Just the number of them. Look, you don't believe scientists or other experts. Supposedly they are all lying. And it is apparently too much trouble to try to look the answers up yourself. I don't know why you think you are going to get any definitive answers to these kind of questions on a photography forum. Its not like your are asking if you like Canon or Nikon best.I asked a very simple question. What accounts for the rapid raising of temperatures higher than they are now but 12,000 years ago? That was long before humans added to the rapid rising of CO2 in the atmosphere due to the industrial revolution of 200 years ago.
I asked a very simple question. What accounts for the rapid raising of temperatures higher than they are now but 12,000 years ago? That was long before humans added to the rapid rising of CO2 in the atmosphere due to the industrial revolution of 200 years ago.
So you believe the information shown in the chart is true and accurate, and not subject to any doubt. I have to ask why.I'll flip that question on you. Why don't you trust this scientific study but accept others? If you refuse to accept this one, then you ought to reject all others as questionable as well.
I'll flip that question on you. Why don't you trust this scientific study but accept others? If you refuse to accept this one, then you ought to reject all others as questionable as well.
In any case, my question does not refute your studies.
It raises a specific question about why temperatures went up before the industrial revolution.
It doesn;t question whether CO2 contributes to rising temperatures due to the greenhouse effect.
If there's another reason for the rise 12000 years ago, I'd like to know.
Of course you will flip the question. It is your MO around here. You never answer a direct question. I guess that is so no one can ever say you are wrong.I'm assuming the chart is accurate. Stop playing word games and answer the question. Why did temps go up 12000 years ago suddenly.
What studies would those be? I don't recall ever doing any climate studies. I am certainly not qualified to do any.
I don't know that they did. How did you determine that temperatures went up before the industrial revolution? Oops, a direct question.
Yeah, that's a whole separate question, unless of course the answer to why the temperature went up is that CO2 contributes to rising temperatures due to the greenhouse effect.
I guess we all would. But first things first; I don't know that temperatures went up 12,000 years ago. Last time I checked (which was just now) the thermometer wasn't even invented until 1714.
I have already ask you why you believe the temperature went up 12,000 years ago. You flipped the question, so it is obvious you don't have any idea either.
I'm assuming the chart is accurate.
Stop playing word games and answer the question. Why did temps go up 12000 years ago suddenly.
Why? You don't believe anything else the experts tell you. Why is this chart any different? Oops, another direct question.Maybe someone else can provide a coherent, non-gaming playing response. If temps can go up 12000 years ago for non-human reasons, couldn't the same cause be happening again? No response is require from you, Frank. Take the afternoon off.
I told you. I don't have any idea why the temperature went up, if it really did. I am sure there are competing theories. Ray seems to like the ocean floor volcano theory. Bart thinks that's bollocks and has a video explaining why. Just pick one that sounds good to you. We'll probably never know for certain. I take that back. Ask Trump. He aced that cognitive ability assessment, so if anyone knows, it will be him.
I am much more interested in polar bears anyway.
Maybe someone else can provide a coherent, non-gaming playing response. If temps can go up 12000 years ago for non-human reasons, couldn't the same cause be happening again? No response is require from you, Frank. Take the afternoon off.
I asked a very simple question. What accounts for the rapid raising of temperatures higher than they are now but 12,000 years ago? That was long before humans added to the rapid rising of CO2 in the atmosphere due to the industrial revolution of 200 years ago.
Looking at a localized climate does not give you the big picture...it gives you a localized microclimate that can be affected by many different conditions like the ocean currents. If you would look deeper into the entire earths climate over the last 20,000 years, you'd see the temperature change at a very slow rate right until the 19th century when the temperature started to climb at a rate never before and has been accelerating that climb. I'm more personally interested in how the entire earth's temperature is rising, not some isolated region.The change I noticed in the above chart shows the temperature being 8 degrees lower than current 20,000 years ago. In then goes up 8 degrees over about 8000 years and then stay relatively steady at 0 for the last 12000 years. Why?
The change I noticed in the above chart shows the temperature being 8 degrees lower than current 20,000 years ago. In then goes up 8 degrees over about 8000 years and then stay relatively steady at 0 for the last 12000 years. Why?
Prior to 20,000 years ago, there were 13 degree swings from -8 to +5 above the nominal 0 every 100,000 years? What caused those swings? How did the polar bear survive +5 rises above the nominal 0 degrees?
What is the margin of error for the temperatures in your chart?(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5f/All_palaeotemps.svg)
The change I noticed in the above chart shows the temperature being 8 degrees lower than current 20,000 years ago. In then goes up 8 degrees over about 8000 years and then stay relatively steady at 0 for the last 12000 years. Why?
Prior to 20,000 years ago, there were 13 degree swings from -8 to +5 above the nominal 0 every 100,000 years? What caused those swings? How did the polar bear survive +5 rises above the nominal 0 degrees?
Again...its a localized climate which is heavily influence by the ocean currents. Maybe the currents changed bringing warm currents to Greenland for a few hundred years, then changed and those warm currents did not reach Greenland. Please look at the entire earth's temperatures and you'll see the drastic increase in temperature the last 100 years, especially the last 20 years has not occurred before.
As far as Polar bears...who knows how they survived. Maybe the rest of the Artctic stayed cold. I'm much more concerned about how humans will adapt. Where will 140,000,000 million migrants go?
Again...its a localized climate which is heavily influence by the ocean currents. Maybe the currents changed bringing warm currents to Greenland for a few hundred years, then changed and those warm currents did not reach Greenland. Please look at the entire earth's temperatures and you'll see the drastic increase in temperature the last 100 years, especially the last 20 years has not occurred before.Understanding that polar bears survived high warming periods is very important. The climate change adherents have pushed the danger of a warming climate by trying to scare people that the cute little bear will become extinct. They're using fear tactics to get the policy changes they desire. If they're distorting these things, what else are they embellishing? Maybe the 140,000,000 number is a lie too. Maybe the whole thing is a lie. If scientists start spinning tales to scare people, they're going to lose fair minded people who do want to do the right thing. But no one wants to be a sucker and spend their hard earned money on nonsense.
As far as Polar bears...who knows how they survived. Maybe the rest of the Artctic stayed cold. I'm much more concerned about how humans will adapt. Where will 140,000,000 million migrants go?
Understanding that polar bears survived high warming periods is very important. The climate change adherents have pushed the danger of a warming climate by trying to scare people that the cute little bear will become extinct. They're using fear tactics to get the policy changes they desire. If they're distorting these things, what else are they embellishing? Maybe the 140,000,000 number is a lie too. Maybe the whole thing is a lie. If scientists start spinning tales to scare people, they're going to lose fair minded people who do want to do the right thing. But no one wants to be a sucker and spend their hard earned money on nonsense.
They're using fear tactics to get the policy changes they desire.
Understanding that polar bears survived high warming periods is very important. The climate change adherents have pushed the danger of a warming climate by trying to scare people that the cute little bear will become extinct. They're using fear tactics to get the policy changes they desire. If they're distorting these things, what else are they embellishing? Maybe the 140,000,000 number is a lie too. Maybe the whole thing is a lie. If scientists start spinning tales to scare people, they're going to lose fair minded people who do want to do the right thing. But no one wants to be a sucker and spend their hard earned money on nonsense.
“Confusion over polar bear numbers is justified, as some populations are increasing, while others are declining,” said Brandon Laforest, a senior specialist of Arctic species at WWF Canada. “We are seeing a decline in numbers in populations located near Hudson Bay as sea ice completely melts in the summer, and these bears are dependent on sea ice for survival,” said Laforest.
Polar bears near Churchill, Man., are often going hungry or travelling north for a longer seal-hunting season. However, subpopulations farther north are holding steady, with some even reporting an increase in numbers. “With polar bear countries, including Canada, implementing harvest management regimes, we have reports that these populations are going up,” said Geoff York, a director at Polar Bears International.
One key factor in polar bear survival is the presence of sea ice. “We see a very strong correlation between sea ice loss and changes in polar bears’ abundance,” said York.
Understanding that polar bears survived high warming periods is very important. The climate change adherents have pushed the danger of a warming climate by trying to scare people that the cute little bear will become extinct. They're using fear tactics to get the policy changes they desire. If they're distorting these things, what else are they embellishing? Maybe the 140,000,000 number is a lie too. Maybe the whole thing is a lie. If scientists start spinning tales to scare people, they're going to lose fair minded people who do want to do the right thing. But no one wants to be a sucker and spend their hard earned money on nonsense.
Yup, the jig is up. Scientists all over the world are concocting wild-ass theories to scare people for the big money payout they get from doing that. All those gazillions in research grants are up for grabs. I was just speaking to a climate scientist the other day at the Lamborghini dealer. His threw a piston. I was in the showroom to get out of the heat.
Politicians gain more power controlling the economy and government spending. Companies like Tesla who sell electric cars, power storage batteries, solar cells, etc. Environmental scientists get grants for research. How many grants do you think a scientist will get if he suggests that global warming is not due to humans? (Publish or perish.)
Why to they desire these policy changes? Whats's in it for them?
Politicians gain more power controlling the economy and government spending. Companies like Tesla who sell electric cars, power storage batteries, solar cells, etc. Environmental scientists get grants for research. How many grants do you think a scientist will get if he suggests that global warming is not due to humans? (Publish or perish.)
How many grants do you think a scientist will get if he suggests that global warming is not due to humans? (Publish or perish.)
I took a quick look at the chart. It is kind of funky because the Y-axis on the left side is different than the Y-axis on the right side, so comparing graphs between time periods is difficult. You would think it would be an easy fix to use the same scale, but apparently not. I think you would probably get a few points off in an elementary science fair for doing so, but it has been a long time since I was in elementary school. Maybe they teach that sort of thing in junior high now. Fortunately for us, we only have to look at the right side of the graph because the polar bear is only between 150,000 and 600,000 years old depending on who you believe, if anyone. That is why I asked if polar bears were around back then when we were talking before. I mean you need less than half the chart, why not post half the chart? At least you wouldn't have to futz around with the scroll bar thing. It leaves me thinking that perhaps this is not the best chart to use when thinking about polar bears. But what the hell. Alan found it on the internet, so let's go with it.There's nothing wrong with the graph. The Y axis values of temperature are consistent throughout. The left side labels the Y axis in degrees in Centigrade while the right side label is indicated in Fahrenheit. That's why the numbers seem in conflict. They aren't. Note that my earlier posts gave measurements in Fahrenheit.
In the article I read, it said that polar bears have only been living during one or perhaps two of the recent warming periods, neither of which were as hot as it is projected to be by 2100. Sounds like we don't know whether the polar bears will go extinct by looking exclusively at a temperature chart because they have never been through such a temperature change.
Of course there are a lot of other things in play. Temperature itself may not be the critical factor, except as it may influence other factors. I mean I have been to the zoo in the summer when it was really hot and the polar bears were alive, so it is not just temperature. I am thinking about things like food and habitat. But for someone like me, who only knows that polar bears are white, live in the arctic, and eat seals, there are a lot of unknown unknowns. But I am sure the scientists have thought about all this stuff before, and have taken it into consideration. It is not like some random guy on the internet who likes to take pictures and can't decide whether to buy a Canon or a Nikon is going to solve the mystery.
https://www.nrdc.org/experts/sylvia-fallon/polar-bears-older-past-same-future
I am not a scientist. I don't know whether the temperature chart or the article about how long the polar bears have been around are correct. I mean the weatherman can't tell you exactly what the temperature is going to be tomorrow, so I don't know why scientists think they can tell you exactly what the temperature was a million years ago. You also may be able to find contradictory information. In fact I am certain you can. I am just looking at some stuff on the internet, to wit: a temperature chart Alan dredged up from somewhere, and an article about how old the polar bears are I found by Googling "how old are the polar bears?" I am pretty sure that doesn't qualify for the scientific method. And of course if you do not believe experts and think they are all lying to you, none of this stuff makes any difference anyway. Just tell yourself the bears will be okay and be done with it. Don’t think you have to convince me. I shoot Fuji.
Finally, I don't know what Alan is talking about when he says "no one wants to be a sucker and spend their hard earned money on nonsense." Is he talking about making a contribution to the Society for the Preservation of Polar Bears or what? Because it sure seems like it would be easier just to cut them a $10 check and get a free tote bag than go through all this rigamarole.
There's nothing wrong with the graph. The Y axis values of temperature are consistent throughout. The left side labels the Y axis in degrees in Centigrade while the right side label is indicated in Fahrenheit. That's why the numbers seem in conflict. They aren't. Note that my earlier posts gave measurements in Fahrenheit.
The argument made by "experts" is that the polar bear is dying out because they can't adapt. The graph show that while polar bears have been on earth, they have gone through many periods when the temperature was a lot hotter than it is now. Their arguments is not that their extinction would happen at some time in the future assuming it gets that hot. But rather they are dying now which is false both from a graph point of view and from other studies that have counted the bears. The scientists were premature in their claims. While it gets proponents to their side, more astute and skeptical people see it as an attempt to fool the public. So they lose credibility. That's not how science should be done.
Finally, your linked article is very interesting. Thanks for posting it. The main point about how extra hot temperature in the future might wipe out the polar bear is very speculative. Remember, we're not talking about an individual bear living today that will die in a hundred years. We're talking about generations of bears that will adapt to changing temperature. During that period, the fittest will survive who can handle the rising temperatures as any Darwin fan like me knows. They will have progeny who will be able to handle the changes even better. The other individuals who can't will die out and not have offspring or will have but they will die. That's how nature works. A form of "herd immunity" so to speak.
And how much oil do you think the big bad oil companies will sell if they suggest global warming is occurring and being caused predominantly by gas powered engines? Who do you think has more muscle...the scientists in their dark labs or the oil executives sitting on wall street?We expect oil companies to lie to protect their bottom line. Does that justify environmentalists and scientists lying about polar bears and climate change? Why should the public believe anyone when everyone is lying?
What a bunch or gibberish and nonsense. I am going to make a donation on your behalf to the Society for the Preservation of Polar Bears anyway. Keep an eye out for your tote bag.Frank, you were the one who didn't understand the graph. But I appreciate the tote bag. I hope it's got a cute little baby polar bear on it.
A general reminder when talking about temperature differences or emission increases, it's one thing to look at the absolute differences, it's another thing if we look at the rate of change. The current increases in Greenhouse gasses and the temperature increase are occurring at an unprecedentedly fast pace.So far, the polar bear is doing OK. So that argument is just speculative. [Some=edit] scientists have been saying the polar bear is already declining. That isn't true.
Nature is having a hard time to keep up with the speed at which things are changing.
So far, the polar bear is doing OK. So that argument is just speculative. [Some=edit] scientists have been saying the polar bear is already declining. That isn't true.
Alan,Maybe the 30% moved to colder areas? Just like there won't be as many Canadians going to Florida as it warms up north. Miamians will be complaining, "Where are the Canadians?" :)
you are just thinking so. The bears are doing OK only in the far north where there is still enough ice. In the southern regions of Arctic with less ice in the winter, polar bears are on decline. In Churchill, Manitoba the Polar bear population has been reduced by 30%. I quoted the source in my previous post.
Maybe the 30% moved to colder areas? Just like there won't be as many Canadians going to Florida as it warms up north. Miamians will be complaining, "Where are the Canadians?" :)
So far, the polar bear is doing OK.
The argument made by "experts" is that the polar bear is dying out because they can't adapt. The graph show that while polar bears have been on earth, they have gone through many periods when the temperature was a lot hotter than it is now. Their arguments is not that their extinction would happen at some time in the future assuming it gets that hot. But rather they are dying now which is false both from a graph point of view and from other studies that have counted the bears. The scientists were premature in their claims. While it gets proponents to their side, more astute and skeptical people see it as an attempt to fool the public. So they lose credibility. That's not how science should be done.
We expect oil companies to lie to protect their bottom line. Does that justify environmentalists and scientists lying about polar bears and climate change? Why should the public believe anyone when everyone is lying?
We expect oil companies to lie to protect their bottom line. Does that justify environmentalists and scientists lying about polar bears and climate change? Why should the public believe anyone when everyone is lying?So the oil companies are saying everything is okay, but they are lying, which means everything is not okay, which is what the scientists are saying. So how are the scientist lying? Seems like you have a little bit of an internal inconsistency there.
Because we stopped hunting them for pleasure, they have been recovering slowly.They seem more allergic to lead than CO2. :)
You place great emphasis on the temperature graph. In fact, it is central to your argument. At the same time, you say that all the scientists are lying. Why aren't the scientists lying about the temperatures in the chart? I have asked you this a couple of times and you haven't answered.I trust the chart. The analysis and conclusions are mine.
But which group has the most clout and money to promote their cause? Who would you believe...the executive from an oil company that flys around on their personal jets or the scientist that eats at McDonald's and works 80 hours a week. I know where I'd put my money.So I should trust poor people who lie?
So the oil companies are saying everything is okay, but they are lying, which means everything is not okay, which is what the scientists are saying. So how are the scientist lying? Seems like you have a little bit of an internal consistency there.They're both lying or embellishing. You have to use discernment.
So I should trust poor people who lie?
Alan you made it very clear...you trust no one...oh maybe only the orange man. And only maybe the person who supports your biases.People tend to believe the last thing they read. :)
If you have to trust someone, who would it be...the billionaire oil executive which has multi billions at stake or the scientist who works with facts.
I trust the chart.
Actually, the question was not did you trust the chart. We know that. It is central to your argument. The question was why do you trust the chart. It directly contradicts your belief that all scientist are lying.When did I say all scientists are lying? I never said that. I do use discernment when anyone tells me something. Do you believe a Nikon guy when he tells you that Nikon is the best camera? :)
Is this like Schrödinger’s cat where something might be true and not true at the same time. It just seems to me that if it is the case that the temperatures in the chart could be true and not true at the same time, the proposition that polar bears might go extinct if it gets too hot could be true and not true at the same time. That way we wouldn’t have to say the oil companies and the scientists are lying. We could just say the oil companies and scientists are just saying things which are true and not true at the same time. It would just depend on you quantum state at that moment. Nah.
When did I say all scientists are lying? I never said that. I do use discernment when anyone tells me something. Do you believe a Nikon guy when he tells you that Nikon is the best camera? :)
I do use discernment when anyone tells me something.
Do you believe a Nikon guy when he tells you that Nikon is the best camera?
Ok...what makes you believe this one scientist and not believe all the others?All I'm trusting is the chart. It seems to be have assembled from different sources. My opinion about the bears was based on my observation of the chart. The scientists who prepared the study said nothing about what I said. It was my own conclusions based on the chart. I discerned my conclusion from it and did not draw on any conclusions the scientists made in their study.
All I'm trusting is the chart. It seems to be have assembled from different sources. My opinion about the bears was based on my observation of the chart. The scientists who prepared the study said nothing about what I said. It was my own conclusions based on the chart. I discerned my conclusion from it and did not draw on any conclusions the scientists made in their study.
How quickly did the other "heat spells" in Greenland take to materialize? This current earth warming jumped in the last 20 years and has been accelerating. Do you think changes that take hundreds ( maybe thousands ) of years differ than changes that take 20 years. Do you feel the polar bear can adapt better if climate change takes hundreds of years versus 20 years?I'm not a polar bear, so I can't say for sure. But, yes, I think they can adapt if the temperatures continue to escalate. Keep in mind that the temperature has gone up about 1 degree in a hundred or two hundred years, I believe, not 20 years. That's many generations.
I'm not a polar bear, so I can't say for sure.
All I'm trusting is the chart. It seems to be have assembled from different sources. My opinion about the bears was based on my observation of the chart. The scientists who prepared the study said nothing about what I said. It was my own conclusions based on the chart. I discerned my conclusion from it and did not draw on any conclusions the scientists made in their study.
I'm not a polar bear, so I can't say for sure. But, yes, I think they can adapt if the temperatures continue to escalate. Keep in mind that the temperature has gone up about 1 degree in a hundred or two hundred years, I believe, not 20 years. That's many generations.
Alan, you do realize that everything to the left of the "historical observations" is based on a scientist's theory and not direct measurement of the temperature? There is no absolute "proof" that it is correct.
I'm not a polar bear, so I can't say for sure. But, yes, I think they can adapt if the temperatures continue to escalate. Keep in mind that the temperature has gone up about 1 degree in a hundred or two hundred years, I believe, not 20 years. That's many generations.
I've been questioning whether there are changes occuring by causes we haven't identified yet? So it seems here is now another one for cooling that seems to have been identified. How will all of these beside CO2 affect the future climate? How wrong are the current algorithms?
Texas cave sediment upends meteorite explanation for global cooling
"This research underscores that extreme climate variability since the last ice age is attributed to unique Earth-bound drivers rather than extraterrestrial mechanisms. Such insights are important guidance for building better models of past and future climate change."
I've followed the climate issue a lot. I feel much of it has been hyped because important data has not been included, the results spun, or the media has just plain lied about it. It seems the scales have been tipped to present it a certain way.
Several times you have been asked WHY "the scales have been tipped a certain way". You've never provided an answer.I have discussed it. I guess you missed it. Check my previous posts.
There are a lot of them, apparently. WHO precisely has this agenda and WHY are they promoting it so assiduously?
Several times you have been asked WHY "the scales have been tipped a certain way". You've never provided an answer.
There are a lot of them, apparently. WHO precisely has this agenda and WHY are they promoting it so assiduously?
...I don't see any reason to address both issues at the same time.
Over the years, thousands of lives will be lost and trillions of dollars worth of damage to property will occur because of the emphasis on the reduction of CO2 emissions, instead of organizing and shaping our suburbs, cities and landscape with the expectation that previous extreme weather events, unconnected with mankind's CO2 emissions, will continue to occur. This is why I'm deeply concerned about the issue. Okay?
I'll provide an answer, but it's rather long.
...
Over the years, thousands of lives will be lost and trillions of dollars worth of damage to property will occur because of the emphasis on the reduction of CO2 emissions, instead of organizing and shaping our suburbs, cities and landscape with the expectation that previous extreme weather events, unconnected with mankind's CO2 emissions, will continue to occur. This is why I'm deeply concerned about the issue. Okay?
Sorry, but that was a non-answer. I didn't ask why you were "deeply concerned about the issue". My question was "who's tipping the scales, and why"? You avoided answering either component.For the same reason [virologists =edit]scientists promote shutting down the economy because of Covid 19. They want to stop the spread of the disease. They're concerned with the science and don't consider the economics. Finance isn't their field. The fact that spending to reduce CO2 takes funding away from other important needs, doesn't enter their thinking. That's why we need broad based experts including economists to be included when figuring out policy. There are tradeoffs. It's like spending all your money on the best camera and have no money left for printing the photos.
Please don't respond with the tired trope that "It's the scientists looking for more career-advancing funding for climate research". That response has zero credibility.
The 97% of scientists who agree that CO2 is forcing global heating are demonstrably more interested in science than notoriety or money. If they were fame and money-driven, they'd be in politics, and not in the notoriously underfunded business of science.
So, I'll ask again. "What's in it for science to promote AGW"?
For the same reason [virologists =edit]scientists promote shutting down the economy because of Covid 19. They want to stop the spread of the disease. They're concerned with the science and don't consider the economics. Finance isn't their field. The fact that spending to reduce CO2 takes funding away from other important needs, doesn't enter their thinking. That's why we need broad based experts including economists to be included when figuring out policy. There are tradeoffs. It's like spending all your money on the best camera and have no money left for printing the photos.
So the question that all you AGW deniers won't answer is why the scientists and the media lying about all this. What is in it for them?
First, I'm not a denier. I just have my doubts. Also, the facts are distorted so you only hear one side of the story. They focus on the negative aspects without mentioning the positive aspect such as more farmland, expanding habitable land for all species, greater growth of food due to increased CO2, longer growing seasons, etc. Also, my concern is tradeoffs. No one mentions how other importants things we need to pay for are reduced or eliminated like cancer research, homing the homeless, etc.
Many scientists and media get caught up in the bandwagon effect and copy what others are saying. Many scientists need grants for their research projects. If they promote no climate change research, they won't get funding. Publish or perish is their byword. Media goes where the money is. Disaster movies sell better. So all the nature programs talk about how man is horrible and wants to destroy nature. It's just hype to sell products. Companies like Tesla, windmills for power, solar companies, etc promote their non-carbon products and get government to support their industries with rebates. It reminds me of when the government poverty programs came out in the 1960's. A reporter asked one of the CEO's of the companies involved why there was so much interest. He responded gleefully, "Well, there a lot of money to be made in poverty."
I'll add that the huge costs to limit CO2 reduces financial resources that could be spent on feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, curing the sick, medical research to cure cancer and other diseases.Lets us start with the billonaires that say we need to pay more taxes... and than the scrape some budget of the defense department...for even with half the budget the US will remain the last nation to attack.
..
Lets us start with the billonaires that say we need to pay more taxes... and than the scrape some budget of the defense department...for even with half the budget the US will remain the last nation to attack.I have no problem with companies selling clean energy products such as Tesla. I just object to the government paying for it with my tax money. Why should I give rich people $7500 rebate on $100,000 Teslas? If they have that kind of money to buy a $100K car, they don't need my money. If you want to contribute, why don't you sent the rich guy a check?
You can grow your economy on selling oil and gas, meanwhile polluting your soil and the landscape, but if you don't include the pollution costs it is bringing water to the sea.
Netto growth has to include these aspects as well.
I am sure somebody gets rich by polluting the land, but for a whole, for the society, it may have a negative impact on the medium to long term that can or cannot be corrected by the state ( taxpayer).
Then i also think you deny that the world is at a new revolution of using non emission clean energy.
With an attitude like you have The US will miss the opportunity to make profit from that transmission.
Use an electric car and you will conclude it is already the better way to drive; simpler, silent, more clever and on top of that ; zero emission.
I have no problem with companies selling clean energy products such as Tesla. I just object to the government paying for it with my tax money. Why should I give rich people $7500 rebate on $100,000 Teslas? If they have that kind of money to buy a $100K car, they don't need my money. If you want to contribute, why don't you sent the rich guy a check?
I don't think you get a tax credit for buying a Tesla anymore. They sold their 200,000th car a couple of years ago.I believe you're right. So let's see. 200,000 x $7500= $1.5 billion dollars. I didnlt know you had that much money to give. :)
I believe you're right. So let's see. 200,000 x $7500= $1.5 billion dollars. I didnlt know you had that much money to give. :)
By the way. Kandi, a Chinese company just opened in America to sell their electric cars. Quote: "The K27 starts at $20,499, and is eligible for the $7,500 federal income tax credit. That would put the K27 at just under $13,000, "
So now we're going to subsidize Chinese manufacturers with our taxes. At least Tesla was American. We need Trump to stop this because Biden will probably increase the rebate to $10,000. How dumb can you get?
https://techcrunch.com/2020/07/30/americas-cheapest-electric-vehicles-are-coming-courtesy-of-chinese-automaker-kandi/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAALdDMDvkVmLCfzvdowmyEBs5w1A0J7DmbOOP9aPq1w_6rYelmqtG_4wjMB30pUt18Qb5dfT7UpzQgt5-TS9NUQxNu_rY1FF5YrB82eWdGfh1KjfgLfPw9F_tnITgp44yIpDTuf6RLWxkpVgyYXv1XS_kds1umyZtQZN3bT6pJm9Z
Their plan is to create the maximum alarm about the dangers of CO2 emissions in order to encourage the transition to renewables such as solar and wind and electric vehicles, which do not emit the real and harmful polluting gases, even in countries with high levels of corruption and/or incompetent management.
That approach might seem justified, and was supported by the late Professor Stephen Schneider. I would also support that approach if the exaggerations were confined to the 'real' threats to human health.
For example, I recall watching a video, many years ago, of Stephen Schneider answering questions from an audience of journalists and skeptics, about the exaggeration of the effects of CO2 emissions in the scientific reporting.
His answer made sense. His analogy was, if you want to discourage people from taking up smoking cigarettes, and/or encourage them to give up smoking, it might not be sufficiently effective to provide the precise scientific data that indicates there is, say, a 20% increase in the risk of getting lung cancer, according to the statistical analysis of those in hospitals with lung cancer.
Many people might think, I'll take the risk if it's only 20%. Exaggerating the risk to, say, 75%, will be more effective, and that benefit to the population at large could perhaps justify the scientific dishonesty.
Your repeated attempts to smear the late Dr. Stephen H. Schneider have become so pathetic that I almost feel sorry for you.
Sorry, but that was a non-answer. I didn't ask why you were "deeply concerned about the issue". My question was "who's tipping the scales, and why"? You avoided answering either component.
The history of mankind suggests that one cannot expect whole populations to do the right thing simply because it's sensible and rational. Many people are driven by greed for wealth and power, and others for basic necessities in order to survive. Corruption in politics and business is entrenched, world-wide, although it's worse in some countries than others. The Volkswagen scandal, using "defeat devices" to reduce emissions during testing, is a case in point.
The 97% of scientists who agree that CO2 is forcing global heating are demonstrably more interested in science than notoriety or money.
I'm not smearing him. I'm praising him for being honest about the deception. I feel sorry that you seem unable to comprehend that.
I thought the following statement in my post at least provided part of the answer. There is rarely one simple answer to complex issues.
"The history of mankind suggests that one cannot expect whole populations to do the right thing simply because it's sensible and rational. Many people are driven by greed for wealth and power, and others for basic necessities in order to survive. Corruption in politics and business is entrenched, world-wide, although it's worse in some countries than others. The Volkswagen scandal, using "defeat devices" to reduce emissions during testing, is a case in point."
The Milne Ice Shelf is at the fringe of Ellesmere Island, in the sparsely populated northern Canadian territory of Nunavut. “Above normal air temperatures, offshore winds and open water in front of the ice shelf are all part of the recipe for ice shelf break up,” the Canadian Ice Service said on Twitter when it announced the loss on Sunday.
“Entire cities are that size. These are big pieces of ice,” said Luke Copland, a glaciologist at the University of Ottawa who was part of the research team studying the Milne Ice Shelf.
The shelf’s area shrank by about 80 square kilometers. By comparison, the island of Manhattan in New York covers roughly 60 square kilometers. “This was the largest remaining intact ice shelf, and it’s disintegrated, basically,” Copland said.
The last fully intact ice shelf in the Canadian Arctic has collapsed, losing more than 40% of its area in just two days at the end of July,
I'll provide an answer, but it's rather long.
It’s a clear, odourless gas which is essential for all life, and current increases, as a result of the industrial revolution, have been enormously beneficial for plant growth and food production, world-wide.
Proof, please.
Proof? Farmers have been injecting CO2 into their Greenhouses for many decades, in order to increase crop growth. Didn't you know that? ;D
Here are some studies explaining the process.
https://www.noaa.gov/news/study-global-plant-growth-surging-alongside-carbon-dioxide.
"Has plant growth increased alongside rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?
It turns out the answer is Yes – in a big way. A new study published in the April 6 edition of the journal Nature concludes that as emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels have increased since the start of the 20th century, plants around the world are utilizing 30 percent more carbon dioxide (CO2), spurring plant growth."
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2357&context=usdaarsfacpub
"Plant growth is influenced by above-and below-ground environmental conditions and increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide
(CO2) concentrations enhances growth and yield of most agricultural crops."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2212982015000074
"Here, we analyzed 188 articles on gaseous CO2 fertilization technology in China published from 1982 to 2010. We found that gaseous CO2 fertilizers enhanced the yield of representative fruit vegetable (i.e., cucumber, tomato, chili, zucchini, eggplant, and strawberry) by 33.31% over the past three decades. In addition, crop maturity also advanced (by an average of 6.87 days) and crop resistance to diseases and pests was enhanced."
https://extension.okstate.edu/fact-sheets/greenhouse-carbon-dioxide-supplementation.html
"An increase in ambient CO2 to 800-1000 ppm can increase yield of C3 plants up to 40 to 100 percent."
Your claim was "current increases, as a result of the industrial revolution, have been enormously beneficial for plant growth and food production, world-wide.". That claim is not addressed by the articles you quote. ( Clue: impact of CO2 increase on some plants in a localised area is not proof of worldwide food production benefit. )
Additional CO2 not only expands plant growth. It expands land areas so they can support thousands of species including fauna and animals that were not able to be supported before. Unfortunately, the public only hears the bad news. How can decision makers, the public, and politicians make informed decisions when they only get half the facts?
Can’t they look up the other half of the facts on the internet just like you?Honest appraisal should be made in the media. Unfortunately, they're in the tank for distorted news. Bad news sells better than good news.
Honest appraisal should be made in the media. Unfortunately, they're in the tank for distorted news. Bad news sells better than good news.
As usual, you didn't answer the question, and as usual, it is always the media's fault. Is there no longer any personal responsibility?The media presents distorted news. I'm sorry if you can't see it.
It seems to me what you are saying is the public and the politicians are too lazy to look up the other half of the facts on the internet, so they just go by what's on TV. Or perhaps they are just not that interested one way or the other.
Or maybe the public and the politicians have analyzed the available information and a majority simply don't agree with your conclusion. You could be wrong, you know. I'm not sure why you think you've got an exclusive on what's true and what's not, just because you have read a few articles on the internet.
By the way, do you have an undergraduate or graduate degree in one of the sciences? I am trying to decide how much weight I should give your opinion on this matter. It's not like I am asking you whether you prefer Canon or Nikon.
The media presents distorted news. I'm sorry if you can't see it.
If you think the media presents distorted news, then don't watch it. It will free up more time for photography.You can't trust photography anymore either what with cloning and photoshop. :) It's not real like your stuff. Maybe we all should stick to shooting.
You can't trust photography anymore either what with cloning and photoshop. :) It's not real like your stuff. Maybe we all should stick to shooting.
It's more fun to do the manipulation in Photoshop than behind the camera.
The media presents distorted news. I'm sorry if you can't see it.
You can't trust photography anymore either what with cloning and photoshop. :) It's not real like your stuff. Maybe we all should stick to shooting.
Your claim was "current increases, as a result of the industrial revolution, have been enormously beneficial for plant growth and food production, world-wide.". That claim is not addressed by the articles you quote. ( Clue: impact of CO2 increase on some plants in a localised area is not proof of worldwide food production benefit. )
Correct. While CO2 can benefit plant (and weed) growth (of biomass),
the resulting (global warming and extreme weather) climate effects will shift climate zones instead of only adding areas that produce more biomass.
Biomass alone also doesn't say much about the usefulness (e.g. as a food crop). In addition to CO2, plants also need the right amount of sunlight and water with nutrients. This is not a simple process of adding only one component, CO2. There are many climate zones that will become unsuited to produce food due to the rising temperatures (and lack of water).
CO2 definitely does benefit plant growth. It's a scientifically proven fact. 'No CO2' equates to 'no plant growth' which equates to 'no life'...
The nutritional quality of the food we eat varies considerably, according to soil quality and modern farming practices which tend to gradually deplete the health and quality of the soil over time. That's another issue.
Please spare us that tired old trope. You and Alan have been huckstering high CO2 levels as a benefit to mankind since forever. It's a lame and valueless argument.
Also, I don't recall anyone recommending we reduce atmospheric CO2 to zero.
That's true. Nutritional value varies considerably for many complex reasons. And it's recently been discovered that crops grown in high CO2 environments (rice, specifically) while higher in biomass, are lower in nutritional value. More money for the corporations, less value for the consumers.
Of course it is addressed. Do you have a reading problem, or a problem with logic? :o
Neither, thanks. I gave you a clue in my last posting. To spell things out wastes a good learning opportunity, but you might like to consider the additional efects of increased CO2, such as changes in temperature, and in distribtion of agricultural land due to such factors as desertification and flooding.
Polar bears are doing fine.
Polar bears are doing fine.
So if I posted a picture of an obese American eating an ice cream cone with the title "Virus? Virus? What Virus?" the pandemic would magically disappear?My post is no different than those pictures showing a polar bear on an ice flow with the claim that polar bears are starving because the flows are melting. So I'm showing a fat bear that shows they're eating fine.
Alan, as mentioned several times in this thread, the polar bears in the northern part of Arctic with enough ice are doing fine, whereas the polar bears in the southern Arctic are on decline because of shorter winter season and less sea ice. They bears can fatten up only when there is enough sea ice from where they can hunt the seals.Recent surveys have show polar bears increasing overall. Their demise has been hyped. Certainly changes in the environment have always occurred even before any man-made changes assuming that's what is happening. So increases and decreases in population density naturally changes from area to area.
It's basic biology - mammals with an easy access to food will gain weight, whereas stressed and hungry individuals die from malnourishment.
CO2 definitely does benefit plant growth. It's a scientifically proven fact. 'No CO2' equates to 'no plant growth' which equates to 'no life'.
All crops grown in poor soils will tend to have poor nutritional value. Brazil nuts are a recommended source of Selenium, but studies show that the amount of Selenium per mass of nut varies enormously, depending on where the tree was grown. If there's very little Selenium in the soil, there will be very little Selenium in the nut. Other factors such as the pH of the soil will also affect the uptake of Selenium through the tree roots.
...I'm showing a fat bear that shows they're eating fine.
Recent surveys have show polar bears increasing overall. Their demise has been hyped. Certainly changes in the environment have always occurred even before any man-made changes assuming that's what is happening. So increases and decreases in population density naturally changes from area to area.
It's interesting that you mentioned that fat bears occur in rich feeding grounds. Of course, my photograph is biasing the reportage. I did that deliberately to make a point. No one ever mentions that polar bears on small ice flows is a naturally occurring event. The photo however is erroneously used as a prop to promote climate change politics. It doesn't indicate that the climate change is damaging their environment. It's important that media, scientists, nature programs, and photographers caption their photographs with proper reporting You can deceive on either side.
...Interestingly, when it is too cold, bears do pretty bad too. The ice is best when it's melting. That allow seals to migrate and come up through the ice to breathe. When it's too cold, the ice freezes so hard, seals abandon those areas. So the bears have no seals to feed on and starve.
BTW, polar bears don't hunt from the small floes, the floes are used only for travel and other recreational purposes. They pounce on the seals through the holes in the ice or wait for seals to come to the surface of sea ice to breathe. When the seal nears the surface, the polar bear will bite or grab the seal and pull it onto the ice.
Interestingly, when it is too cold, bears do pretty bad too. The ice is best when it's melting. That allow seals to migrate and come up through the ice to breathe. When it's too cold, the ice freezes so hard, seals abandon those areas. So the bears have no seals to feed on and starve.
NASA article shows CO2 greening the earth.
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events.
The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”
From the article you cited:I'm all in favor of balance in articles and studies that present all the facts. My problem with climate change "science" as mainly presented by scientists, media, and politicians, is that it's been biased and lopsided. How can people and politicians make informed decisions without having the facts on all sides? While CO2 has been presented as being "bad", there are good points about it as well. Increased warming does cause melting ice raising sea levels. But warmer climes in general make farm land more productive. It helps civilization as shown by the fact we're the largest now due to warming as well as other factors. Other species do better mainly because of warming climes as well. Their populations expand and are better supported with more nourishment made more generally available by higher temperatures and precipitation.
I'm all in favor of balance in articles and studies that present all the facts. My problem with climate change "science" as mainly presented by scientists, media, and politicians, is that it's been biased and lopsided. How can people and politicians make informed decisions without having the facts on all sides? While CO2 has been presented as being "bad", there are good points about it as well. Increased warming does cause melting ice raising sea levels. But warmer climes in general make farm land more productive. It helps civilization as shown by the fact we're the largest now due to warming as well as other factors. Other species do better mainly because of warming climes as well. Their populations expand and are better supported with more nourishment made more generally available by higher temperatures and precipitation.
Also, the other issue is that a "solution" to warming is not a solution but a tradeoff. Spending money on reducing change, takes resources away from other important things. Reducing money for researching diseases, feeding the poor, homing the homeless, etc. occurs if you spend it on new technologies, reducing heating and CO2, etc. Again, no one talks about the tradeoffs. We can only do so much. The loss of resources for other important things are ignored. So we might make decisions that hurt us worse. At least we should be making informed choices. That isn’t happening because of the biased agenda.
Anything else besides the biased media?
Anything else besides the biased media?I said scientists and politicians are biased as well. I could have added green manufacturers and corporations, nature organizations, film makers, nature programs, Hollywood movies, TV programs, schools and universities, professors, government agencies, teachers, and others. It's a huge industry.
Recent surveys have show polar bears increasing overall. Their demise has been hyped. Certainly changes in the environment have always occurred even before any man-made changes assuming that's what is happening. So increases and decreases in population density naturally changes from area to area.
It's interesting that you mentioned that fat bears occur in rich feeding grounds. Of course, my photograph is biasing the reportage. I did that deliberately to make a point. No one ever mentions that polar bears on small ice flows is a naturally occurring event. The photo however is erroneously used as a prop to promote climate change politics. It doesn't indicate that the climate change is damaging their environment. It's important that media, scientists, nature programs, and photographers caption their photographs with proper reporting You can deceive on either side.
I said scientists and politicians are biased as well. I could have added green manufacturers and corporations, nature organizations, film makers, nature programs, Hollywood movies, TV programs, schools and universities, professors, government agencies, teachers, and others. It's a huge industry.
Sure they've been on the increase once we stopped slaughtering them for fun. They've been on the decline at their southern locations such as Churchill. Studies have shown less days on the ice as the ice melts sooner, more days on the land without food, lower pregnancy ratios than before, bears are much thinner when the winter ice does finally arrive. This has lead the Bears to move further north. As the ice starts to melt further north...the Bears will continue to migrate north, over populate and area and start to die.They'll migrate to where the seals relocate. Or they'll start hunting other land animals or more salmon. If your farmland soils gave out, you move to another area where it could grow food. Bears are just as smart we are. Maybe they'll start eating Alaskans.
Estimates of 30% of the Bears gone by 2050.
You say they can adapt...but they are adapting by migrating to where they can eat what they always ate, seals. Once that ice is gone...what do you think the bears will eat?
I said scientists and politicians are biased as well. I could have added green manufacturers and corporations, nature organizations, film makers, nature programs, Hollywood movies, TV programs, schools and universities, professors, government agencies, teachers, and others. It's a huge industry.
They are all getting paid to claim that climate change is adversely affecting polar bears? Just making shit up for money? Who is laying out all this money. Can you provide a link to anything that corroborates this?Just look around. When you watch any nature program, they feel obligated to tell us how bad humans are and how man is messing up nature. If a nature photographer made a movie that showed good things that corporations do about the environment, he'd never sell the film. Producers look for what's selling. Researchers looking for grants know they have a better chance touting the correct line. Green companies are trying to sell their products. Right now it's that man is bad. It's propaganda. We're raising generations of people who are not discerning. They can't separate the wheat from the chaff. They believe everything they watch or hear. They don't know how to think independently. They don't know how to ask questions.
Just look around. When you watch any nature program, they feel obligated to tell us how bad humans are and how man is messing up nature. If a nature photographer made a movie that showed good things that corporations do about the environment, he'd never sell the film. Producers look for what's selling. Researchers looking for grants know they have a better chance touting the correct line. Green companies are trying to sell their products. Right now it's that man is bad. It's propaganda. We're raising generations of people who are not discerning. They can't separate the wheat from the chaff. They believe everything they watch or hear. They don't know how to think independently. They don't know how to ask questions.
They'll migrate to where the seals relocate. Or they'll start hunting other land animals or more salmon. If your farmland soils gave out, you move to another area where it could grow food. Bears are just as smart we are. Maybe they'll start eating Alaskans.
So everybody is lying about the polar bears and getting rich, and we are raising a generation of imbeciles. Anything else?
And here I spend my life working hard and investing in the stock market. Hell if I knew I could make my millions telling everyone polar bears are dying...I'd be on a beach at one of my many beach homes around the world.
They'll have to fight the grizzly's and black bears for the salmon...it's already very crowded. They are not adapted to hunt fast land mammals...waste more energy than what they gain.You quote Darwin but don't believe in Darwin. The fast polar bears will survive and have baby polar bears. The slow ones will die off. Orca whales just don;t eat salmon. Many eat seals, sharks, other fish. If the salmon runs out, which is unlikely in all areas, they'll move to areas where salmon still run. Or they'll learn to eat other prey. They're even smarter than polar bears.
Funny...if it's that simple, why do we care the Pandas diet of bamboo shoots...they can just adapt to other things. Same with the orca whales diet of Salmon...they can maybe forge along the coastline on crabs and starfish.
Unfortunately, life is not that simple.
And according to Alan everyone is in on it so you would have a wide range of vocations to chose from. Where do I sign up?No one says certain species aren't under threat. But the polar bear numbered less then 10,000 30 years ago and now they're over 25,000 maybe even 50,000. True, making polar bear hunting illegal has stopped the decrease. But if they were dying out because of climate change, their numbers wouldn't be increasing.
Seriously, I don't know why there wouldn't be a thriving market for stuff about the polar ears are going to be okay, if it were true?
You quote Darwin but don't believe in Darwin. The fast polar bears will survive and have baby polar bears. The slow ones will die off. Orca whales just don;t eat salmon. Many eat seals, sharks, other fish. If the salmon runs out, which is unlikely in all areas, they'll move to areas where salmon still run. Or they'll learn to eat other prey. They're even smarter than polar bears.
No one says certain species aren't under threat. But the polar bear numbered less then 10,000 30 years ago and now they're over 25,000 maybe even 50,000. True, making polar bear hunting illegal has stopped the decrease. But if they were dying out because of climate change, their numbers wouldn't be increasing.
You quote Darwin but don't believe in Darwin. The fast polar bears will survive and have baby polar bears. The slow ones will die off. Orca whales just don;t eat salmon. Many eat seals, sharks, other fish. If the salmon runs out, which is unlikely in all areas, they'll move to areas where salmon still run. Or they'll learn to eat other prey. They're even smarter than polar bears.
I don't believe you understand Darwin. According to Darwin, some species adapt and survive, but others do not adapt and go extinct. I am not sure why you think polar bears are the ones that are going to adapt and survive, rather than not adapt and go extinct. Seen any woolly mammoths lately?Well, woolly mammoths shouldn't have been burning fossil fuels if they wanted to survive. All that heat wiped them out. :)
None of that means anything because the population is increasing overall.
Well, woolly mammoths shouldn't have been burning fossil fuels if they wanted to survive. All that heat wiped them out. :)
I understand that some species go extinct. But in the case of polar bears, their population has increased since the climate has warmed up in the last thirty years or so. Even with banning hunting, if the ice melting was affecting their population overall, it would be going down, not up. Now it could have gone up faster without warming. I don;t know the answer to that. But to argue they're going extinct when their population is increasing is incorrect. It could happen I suppose. But there's no evidence of it yet. Only suppositions and propaganda.
But in the case of polar bears, their population has increased since the climate has warmed up in the last thirty years or so. Even with banning hunting, if the ice melting was affecting their population overall, it would be going down, not up. Now it could have gone up faster without warming. I don;t know the answer to that. But to argue they're going extinct when their population is increasing is incorrect. It could happen I suppose. But there's no evidence of it yet. Only suppositions and propaganda.
You quote Darwin but don't believe in Darwin. The fast polar bears will survive and have baby polar bears. The slow ones will die off. Orca whales just don;t eat salmon. Many eat seals, sharks, other fish. If the salmon runs out, which is unlikely in all areas, they'll move to areas where salmon still run. Or they'll learn to eat other prey. They're even smarter than polar bears.
A father in Canada’s far north says he was barely able to keep his tent closed against a polar bear that was trying to break in for food.
“This polar bear nearly killed me and my two boys,” Issiah Oyukuluk said on Facebook after the terrifying encounter.
Short sited view. Anytime habitat is reduced for a species...nothing good comes from it. With the ice receding due to climate changes, the polar bear habitat is shrinking and more importantly the time a polar bear spends on the ice eating is being reduced. Sure the reduction of hunting has given life to the species...but it now is dealing with a much bigger issue, one that cannot be turned off at the drop of a hat like hunting was.It survived numerous warnings hotter than now after every Ice Age ended. How do you know that the warmer periods before the first Ice age wasn't the normal times for it and the colder Ice Age periods were the rarer and tougher times when it was forced to prey on seals? Getting warmer may place it back in time when it did better. Most species do better when it warms up. There's usually more prey to support it. The problem is we humans assume that the current period we live in is the normal period because that's what we're use too. Well, what is the normal period for the earth?
Is the population increasing?You're showing an old study from 2008. Recent studies have shown the polar bear population multiple times larger than they were from 30 years ago.
http://www.sej.org/publications/alaska-and-hawaii/magic-number-a-sketchy-fact-about-polar-bears-keeps-goingand-going-an
Yes, polar bears can adapt. Occasionally, bears in southern Arctic regions eat sled dogs. Other reports from Arctic describe polar bears pulling out people from tents.I understand they're really fond of Canadians.
https://www.aptnnews.ca/national-news/another-close-encounter-with-polar-bear-nearly-adds-to-deadly-statistics/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/19/polar-bear-attack-sleeping-czech-tourist
Well, what is the normal period for the earth?
You're showing an old study from 2008. Recent studies have shown the polar bear population multiple times larger than they were from 30 years ago.
Today, though, the sea bears’ future around Churchill looks bleak. In Churchill and the surrounding area (called the Western Hudson Bay), the bears’ population is plunging. The last two decades have been particularly harsh. “The population has declined substantially since the late nineties by 30 percent,” said Evan Richardson, a research scientist for Environment and Climate Change Canada, a government agency. What was once a population of 1,200 bears is now 800, and falling.
You're showing an old study from 2008. Recent studies have shown the polar bear population multiple times larger than they were from 30 years ago.
I understand they're really fond of Canadians.
You keep quoting old reports. This one is from 2019:Les, the report I read covered the entire range not just Churchill. The overall population of the bear has increased at least three fold in thirty years. I think we need to get off the polar bear. If that's the main reason to spend 2 trillion dollars as Biden suggests on "Green", it would be cheaper to just kill a bunch of seals and helicopter drop them for the bears to eat.
https://mashable.com/feature/polar-bears-churchill-population-decline/
Les, the report I read covered the entire range not just Churchill. The overall population of the bear has increased at least three fold in thirty years. I think we need to get off the polar bear. If that's the main reason to spend 2 trillion dollars as Biden suggests on "Green", it would be cheaper to just kill a bunch of seals and helicopter drop them for the bears to eat.
I know where we can get them. Cape Cod. Apparently, in caring so much for seals there, we outlawed killing them for food or fur. So now, there's a huge influx of white sharks there to feed on the seals. Apparently, they've mistaken some of our neighbors for the furry pinnipeds, and have been chomping on our relatives as well. It's screwing up people's vacations. The store owners, like in Jaws, are complaining that they got to get rid of the sharks which is apparently worse then COvid 19. No one wants to vacation there anymore if they need to swim with a shark cage. So I propose that we kill the seals and ship them north to feed the polar bears. The sharks will leave, the vacationers will come back to Cape Cod, and the bears will stuff themselves. Then I can keep my SUV and keep polluting the atmosphere without guilt.
The overall population of the bear has increased at least three fold in thirty years.
Man is part of nature. It uses nature for its advantages just like all other species. Nature is not threatened by man.
In the larger sense, that's true. Nature will carry on, even if it means making humans extinct. Nature will carry on just fine without us, we are just one particular adaption. We don't try to preserve nature because nature needs the help, we preserve it because WE need it to survive. This is basic, why does it need repeating.
Plain Language Summary
Earth's global “climate sensitivity” is a fundamental quantitative measure of the susceptibility of Earth's climate to human influence. A landmark report in 1979 concluded that it probably lies between 1.5‐4.5°C per doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide, assuming that other influences on climate remain unchanged. In the 40 years since, it has appeared difficult to reduce this uncertainty range. In this report we thoroughly assess all lines of evidence including some new developments. We find that a large volume of consistent evidence now points to a more confident view of a climate sensitivity near the middle or upper part of this range. In particular, it now appears extremely unlikely that the climate sensitivity could be low enough to avoid substantial climate change (well in excess of 2°C warming) under a high‐emissions future scenario. We remain unable to rule out that the sensitivity could be above 4.5°C per doubling of carbon dioxide levels, although this is not likely. Continued research is needed to further reduce the uncertainty and we identify some of the more promising possibilities in this regard.
“It was excruciatingly hot,” David Phillips, a climatologist at Environment and Climate Change Canada, told the Star. “No doubt about it, this was the warmest July.”
Phillips calculated that the average temperature for the month of July was 25 C, which beat the previous July record of 24.4 C set in 2011.
This July also saw an average daytime high of 30.3 C, which comes within spitting distance of the record set in 1951 of 30.3 C.
Again, that's because we've stopped hunting them.The media has been reporting the polar bear population has been decreasing. That's not true. It's tripled, at least in the last 30 years. If global warming is wiping them out, the numbers would still decrease. The news is phony. The only argument they could make is that if it warms up more, then it's possible it may reverse and start losing population. But that's not their argument. They've argued it's already decreasing and that's a lie.
The media has been reporting the polar bear population has been decreasing. That's not true. It's tripled, at least in the last 30 years. If global warming is wiping them out, the numbers would still decrease. The news is phony. The only argument they could make is that if it warms up more, then it's possible it may reverse and start losing population. But that's not their argument. They've argued it's already decreasing and that's a lie.
The media has been reporting the polar bear population has been decreasing.
The studies showing an increase in polar bears are hoaxes. Climate charge deniers are funding them. Of course this is America, so you can believe whatever you want to believe, even if it is false.The studies showing an decrease in polar bears are hoaxes. Climate charge supporters are funding them. Of course this is America, so you can believe whatever you want to believe, even if it is false.
Reputable media? Then maybe they are correct.I hope you don't keep your film in the sun too.
FWIW, I don't even need the media to tell me that at the current rate of warming nature cannot adapt fast enough without making casualties. It can be observed when you open your eyes. In my country we are getting insects that have before only occurred in the Mediterranean. Some of those insects can move fast enough to follow the climate, but the indigenous insects/plants/animals have no defense against those invasive species. The polar regions are warming even faster which also affects foodsources of species that live there and have nowhere to migrate.
Attached the thermometer reading of this afternoon on my balcony (that's showing about 129 Fahrenheit).
"Attached the thermometer reading of this afternoon on my balcony (that's showing about 129 Fahrenheit)." In full sunlight. Come on now, Bart, you should know better. And don't tell me I don't know about the weather in the Netherlands. I may have move away a long time ago, but I keep in touch with my relatives and friends there.
The studies showing an increase in polar bears are hoaxes. Climate charge deniers are funding them. Of course this is America, so you can believe whatever you want to believe, even if it is false.
The studies showing an decrease in polar bears are hoaxes. Climate charge supporters are funding them. Of course this is America, so you can believe whatever you want to believe, even if it is false.
Man is part of nature. It uses nature for its advantages just like all other species. Nature is not threatened by man.
Man is part of nature. It uses nature for its advantages just like all other species. Nature is not threatened by man.
Yes, in the sunshine. I need a new thermometer with a higher range.I've got an awning over my back patio. Maybe we can put one over the Earth and solve the global warming crisis?
Large parts of the cities do not have enough shade. Customers are avoiding shops, unless they sell essentials like food or have good cooling (which is costing the shops lots of extra money). And those relatives can tell you that the official KNMI weather-stations have at around the same time reported 32.3 Celsius (air temperature at 1.5 meters above the ground in a meadow) in the center of the country, which is where I live. And it's cooler today than it was yesterday.
...
Tell that to the dodo.They weren't very smart. That's why they called them the dodo. :)
Jeremy
I've got an awning over my back patio. Maybe we can put one over the Earth and solve the global warming crisis?
On the contrary. The nature is threatened by man, and man can be threatened by nature (especially by hungry bears).Who do you think has a better chance of surviving? Man or bear?
Or reduce the build-up of CO2 (which causes an amplifying build-up of watervapor, and Methane, other greenhouse gasses).That's not going to happen. We need to think out of the box. ;)
Prevention seems more realistic than your cure.
Who do you think has a better chance of surviving?
Who do you think has a better chance of surviving? Man or bear?
This is a win-loose thinking. Try to come up with a win-win scenario.Smokey Bear.
Who do you think has a better chance of surviving? Man or bear?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypy4zHxeCCw
Tell that to the dodo.
Jeremy
And canis lupus, *recently* hunted to absolute extinction in the USA. Thanks, ranchers lobby.The same was done with bison from the Bronx Zoo.
Recently re-introduced to America with wolves from Canada. Yer welcome.
Peter, I've noticed that here in New Jersey. There seems to be less bugs and mosquitoes. When you drive, the headlights don't seem to illuminate many bugs on the road than when I was younger.
Anybody else noticed this where they live? Fewer insects?
Anybody else noticed this where they live? Fewer insects?
My biggest concern however is ticks, Lyme infected. The disease has grown immensely and certainly there is no decrease in ticks. I try to put on my Permethrin treated clothes when I'm photographing in the woods or even on grass off the side of roads. Maybe the ticks are eating the other bugs. :)
I don't see as many bees, wasps, butterflies and dragonflies as in the previous years.
Speaking of which: bugs. Living on the same 30 acres of rural land in SE British Columbia, I learned that I could tell what non-winter week it was by what kinds of bugs were about.
Now? None. For the last two years, there are virtually no bugs here at all, save mosquitoes and a few domestic honey bees, and even those are scarce. Grasshoppers and crickets, a sure harbinger of August, are totally absent. Dragonflies, which eat bugs, are completely gone, too. As are nearly all the birds. The corvids remain, but they'll eat anything.
I regularly drive across the province and my decidedly unscientific research proves that my local observations are valid from here to Vancouver. My windshield is the measurement tool. It acquires a quarter of the windshield deaths that it did in previous years.
Something has radically changed in the insect world in my part of the world and it's scary.
I remember driving through the Okanagan during early evenings from Penticton to Midway and having to stop in Osoyoos to clean the windshield from all the bug guts. No such thing now. Definitely the bugs have bugged out.
I remember driving through the Okanagan during early evenings from Penticton to Midway and having to stop in Osoyoos to clean the windshield from all the bug guts. No such thing now. Definitely the bugs have bugged out.
The RSPB’s State of Nature study suggests there has been a 59 per cent decline in insects in the UK since 1970.
While experts say the phenomenon is “near impossible” to prove, the changing shape of cars and increase in traffic on the roads could also be to blame.
Motors are now more aerodynamic, meaning fewer insects are likely to hit the windshield.
Could be due also to more aerodynamic shapes of the cars.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/4338549/this-is-why-your-car-windscreen-is-no-longer-covered-in-dead-insects/
Maybe insects are getting smarter and just avoiding cars. Darwin at work. Those that are drawn to the headlamps die. Those that avoid the headlamps survive and have offspring who also avoid the lamps. They're off in the woods biting photographers.
The Governors Highway Safety Administration calculates that there were 6590 pedestrian fatalities in 2019 after making a preliminary analysis of the available data.
If that estimate holds when numbers are released later this year, that would mark a 60 percent increase in fatalities since 2009.
Meanwhile, all other traffic deaths only rose 2 percent between 2009 and 2018.
. Those that are drawn to the headlamps die. Those that avoid the headlamps survive and have offspring who also avoid the lamps.
Maybe the bugs are even smarter than I thought.
Your comments about Darwinian selection when it comes to bears and insects amuse me. Keeping Easter Island in mind, what would be your attitude be toward the human race contributing to its own extinction by our profligate behaviour. Or do you think that whatever we do is fine. (I'll leave undefined who "we" is because the entire human race rarely rarely acts in concert.)We should be good stewards of the environment. But it's ok to use nature too. Common sense and balance.
We should be good stewards of the environment. But it's ok to use nature too. Common sense and balance.
Satellite Study Reveals Enormity of Melting Ice Shelves in AntarcticaI don't subscribe and can't read the article. What does "enormity" mean from a consequence standpoint?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/satellite-study-reveals-enormity-of-melting-ice-shelves-in-antarctica-11597071600
Fortunately, polar bears don't live in the Antarctic, but penguins do. Everyone loves penguins. You missed out on the ivory-billed woodpecker; don't miss out on the penguins. Book your photography workshop trip to the Antarctic now before it's too late.
I don't subscribe and can't read the article. What does "enormity" mean from a consequence standpoint?
I don't subscribe to the WSJ and was able to read the article. There is no benefit to discussing the article with you if you haven't read it. It would be as pointless as discussing Trump's behavior at the press conference you didn't watch.
The link asks me to subscribe or sign in...
Death Valley soars to 130 degrees, potentially Earth’s highest temperature since at least 1931
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/08/16/death-valley-heat-record/
If we had accurate temperature records going back a 1,000 years or more, this current reading of 130 degrees F could be the 50th-highest in the world, or even the 100th-highest. ;)
Check with Alan. He has accurate temperature records going back several hundred million years. He even has a chart.Well, Death Valley hasn't seen any polar bears in years. :)
Well, Death Valley hasn't seen any polar bears in years. :)
The radical left-wing scientists have been bought off by whomever is suppose to be buying off radical left-wing scientists to say that polar bears don't live in Death Valley. Otherwise, their argument that polar bears will go extinct due to climate change falls apart. The people who have been trying to film Sasquatch in the wilds of Canada have given up, and have now set up filming in Death Valley. We should have evidence of polar bears living in Death Valley on YouTube any day now. I don't know how hard it is to spray paint a black bear white.
The radical left-wing scientists have been bought off by whomever is suppose to be buying off radical left-wing scientists to say that polar bears don't live in Death Valley. Otherwise, their argument that polar bears will go extinct due to climate change falls apart. The people who have been trying to film Sasquatch in the wilds of Canada have given up, and have now set up filming in Death Valley. We should have evidence of polar bears living in Death Valley on YouTube any day now.
More than 200 reindeer have been found dead this summer in the Norwegian archipelago of Svalbard -- and climate change appears to be the killer, researchers say.
The reindeer likely starved to death after being unable to find food to graze on, according to scientists at the Norwegian Polar Institute (NPI), a federal scientific research agency that monitors the wild reindeer population.
Les: The article states: "The relatively large number of calves born last year exacerbated the problem. The youngest and weakest animals are often the first to die in harsh conditions like these, according to the Institute."
High offspring rates means that the feeding the previous year was good. So there was plenty of food then. MAybe caused by warmer weather and CO2 that grows more food for grazing. There may not have been enough grazing areas the following year which is natural for whitetail deer here in the US as well. What happens is over a number of good years, the herds expand tremendously. Hunting doesn't deplete them enough. Then, the deer suffer deaths with a 50% reduction in one bad winter because the deer can't get to the food or there's not enough to go around. But this is normal. It doesn;t mean we're have another ice age.
Likewise, are the scientists jumping to conclusions about the reindeer? Similar things could be happening there from time to time. Populations expand and contract, yes, especially due to changes in the environment and weather. So what?
Also, I'd like to know how many deer expanded because the higher CO2 and warmth gave them better grazing in the good years. The greater population would have set them up for a bad year this year. Did the scientists investigate that aspect?
I guess it is theoretically possible that the scientists overlooked all of those considerations.If they didn't include it in their report, then yes, they overlooked them. I didn't read the report. So the question is did they report on the number of reindeer population for the past few years? They did mention there was a large birthrate the previous year. Did they explain what effect that has? People, yes scientists, are always blaming climate change. But changes in the weather happen regularly enough to effect huge die offs in animal population. These may or may not have to do with climate change. Speculating isn't science. How did they arrive at their conclusions?
If they didn't include it in their report, then yes, they overlooked them. I didn't read the report. So the question is did they report on the number of reindeer population for the past few years? They did mention there was a large birthrate the previous year. Did they explain what effect that has? People, yes scientists, are always blaming climate change. But changes in the weather happen regularly enough to effect huge die offs in animal population. These may or may not have to do with climate change. Speculating isn't science. How did they arrive at their conclusions?
You'd have to read the report to find out. In the meantime, just assume they are dishonest, or at least incompetent, scientists.Maybe the media is pushing the climate change angle in their reports because that's what they do. Instead of reporting and asking the right questions as I have, they focus on climate change because that's what their readers want to read.
I checked another article to get more information. It says there are 22,000 reindeer on Svalbard ISland where the death occurred. 200 dead out of 22,000 is nothing. Especially because they were the vulnerable old and young. The article also says:
" The elderly and young are the first to die as the rest continue on to try and find an area to graze. The bodies of over 200 skinny and malnourished reindeer were found by scientists performing an annual census of the wild reindeer population...
The institute believes there are 22,000 reindeer in Svalbard, but that number could start to decline drastically if the temperatures continue to rise."
https://blog.theanimalrescuesite.greatergood.com/200-dead-reindeer/
Another article claims the regular population to be around 10,000. If true, the 22,000 currently could confirm my point about overpopulation. There's just too many of them to be supported when the weather changes. These could be just natural processes happening unrelated to global warming.
https://www.spitsbergen-svalbard.com/spitsbergen-information/wildlife/svalbard-reindeer.html#:~:text=Miscellaneous%3A%20The%20size%20of%20the,designated%20areas%20in%20Nordenski%C3%B6ld%20Land.
In the meantime, Trump approved oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. That should improve the living conditions for the polar bears.That's speculation. Maybe you're opposed because as a Canadian you'll have more American competition for oil up north. Of course, if we pump it through piping, it would go through Canada so you would get a fee for that. Beneficial for both of our countries.
(https://static.reuters.com/resources/media/global/assets/images/20200817/20200817_2665425020200817161147.jpg)
Maybe the media is pushing the climate change angle in their reports because that's what they do. Instead of reporting and asking the right questions as I have, they focus on climate change because that's what their readers want to read.
That's speculation. Maybe you're opposed because as a Canadian you'll have more American competition for oil up north.
Ah yes, the media.
Frank, I don't see how you can have any trouble with this. The media needs to sell headlines, which means sensationalizing stories. Climate change is an easy target, therefore it gets sensationalized and overblown.
Trump used to great effect in 2016. He did act after act that were easy to sensationalize, getting him free press since he knew they would not be able to resist.
Here's a good review of what Trump does. How Trump Manipulates The Media (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IctC0Quf8zc)
It is just that I don't immediately disbelieve everything I read, and attribute dishonesty or incompetence to those involved in the article and its publication. And I am pretty cynical.
For example, my question about the article was not the same as Alan's about dishonesty in the media. When I looked at the picture I asked myself: if the reindeer died of starvation, why would they all die, young and old, at the same place at the same time?
I have been reading up a lot on climate change since the lock down, and I have come to the conclusion that most of the hysteria sold by the left on climate issues are nonsense.
I guess it is theoretically possible that the scientists overlooked all of those considerations.
If they didn't include it in their report, then yes, they overlooked them. I didn't read the report. So the question is did they report on the number of reindeer population for the past few years? They did mention there was a large birthrate the previous year. Did they explain what effect that has? People, yes scientists, are always blaming climate change. But changes in the weather happen regularly enough to effect huge die offs in animal population. These may or may not have to do with climate change. Speculating isn't science. How did they arrive at their conclusions?
You'd have to read the report to find out. In the meantime, just assume they are dishonest, or at least incompetent, scientists.
That's speculation. Maybe you're opposed because as a Canadian you'll have more American competition for oil up north. Of course, if we pump it through piping, it would go through Canada so you would get a fee for that. Beneficial for both of our countries.
Please share with us what you've been reading that has led you to that conclusion.
if the reindeer died of starvation, why would they all die, young and old, at the same place at the same time?
Yes, Alan has issues with experts in their fields.
Good luck getting a pipeline approved through any native terrirory...especially if it's totally foreign interests.Didn't Trump approve your Canadian Keystone pipeline through the US after Obama stopped it? Don;t you owe him a debt of gratitude? Can't native territory be skirted? What if the pipeline company paid the native people a fee for every barrel sent through their territory. Do you think the natives might change their minds? What if they threw in a gambling casino? ;)
The left here likes to blame the increase in hurricane damage to stronger hurricanes caused by climate change.Why is it "the left here" who likes to blame the increase in hurricane damage to stronger hurricanes caused by climate change. Why do you attach this opinion to "the left"? Do you have any data on this?
Hurricanes have been fairly stable in strength going back a few centuries. The increase n damage is from building more in hurricane prone areas.
Like I said, I do feel in certain areas climate change is an issue, but that is mainly at the polls and low islands. But the constant hysteria is just not true and uncalled for.
Another issue that has pushed in this direction, the left hysteria towards nuclear, which is the only alternate viable power source to fossil fuels.
Not sure that would have been my first guess, but it fits a pattern. I'm not sure why the media would post a picture of some healthy polar bears to accompany this story. They must be slipping. I mean wouldn’t they photoshop in some emancipated bears near a drilling rig?You missed the garbage dump behind the bears. Obviously they're getting fat eating junk food. :)
...You're fortunate to live in an area that is windy and maybe sunnier than many areas. Solar needs storage batteries to operate at night. Wind generation needs, well, wind. The point about nuclear, is that like fossil fuel, it can provide continuous high electric output any time of the day or night. Except when a tree crashes on the wires like it did here in NJ last week during Isaia and we had to eat cold sandwiches for 4 days because the fridge went kaput and sweat because our AC went kaput too. :)
The "only viable alternate"? Really?
1) Precisely zero of the electrical power I consume is from fossil fuels or nuclear. And I use a LOT. I live in a relatively hostile climate.
2) There exists a substantial industry called "photovoltaics" and another one related to groups of large propellers on pylons, both generating many many GW of energy, none of which comes from fossil fuels.
You're fortunate to live in an area that is windy and maybe sunnier than many areas.
Solar needs storage batteries to operate at night. Wind generation needs, well, wind.Thanks for keeping us up to date on this.
The point about nuclear, is that like fossil fuel, it can provide continuous high electric output any time of the day or night.And that's its only important characteristic? There are other power sources that provide identical reliability. I'm connected to one.
Except when a tree crashes on the wires like it did here in NJ last week during Isaia and we had to eat cold sandwiches for 4 days because the fridge went kaput and sweat because our AC went kaput too. :)
Why is it "the left here" who likes to blame the increase in hurricane damage to stronger hurricanes caused by climate change. Why do you attach this opinion to "the left"? Do you have any data on this?
Those hurricane intensity data going back a few centuries: how were they obtained?
Which polls are you referencing?
The "only viable alternate"? Really?
1) Precisely zero of the electrical power I consume is from fossil fuels or nuclear. And I use a LOT. I live in a relatively hostile climate.
2) There exists a substantial industry called "photovoltaics" and another one related to groups of large propellers on pylons, both generating many many GW of energy, none of which comes from fossil fuels.
Didn't Trump approve your Canadian Keystone pipeline through the US after Obama stopped it? Don;t you owe him a debt of gratitude? Can't native territory be skirted? What if the pipeline company paid the native people a fee for every barrel sent through their territory. Do you think the natives might change their minds? What if they threw in a gambling casino? ;)
I was using "here" as in "in this example," not on this site.France has invested heavily in nuclear, what about 80-90% and successfully? Of course, with all the regulations here in America, law suits, liability risk, insurance, and high construction costs, companies have been hesitant to go that way. It's so politically tenuous, no one wants to invest. Maybe we will be able to build it safely on the moon and run a couple of wires. :)
Green energy (wind and solar) is massively expensive and inefficient. On top of that, we past the point of diminishing returned years ago, so any progress will be minimal. Add to that all of the other issues, and it is a pipe dream. Nuclear is the only we choice we have. We may go down a wind/solar rabbit hole and waste tons of money in the process, but rest assure, Nuclear will be the power the source of the future.
Many natives have higher standards than being bought out by big business. Sometimes the environment is much more important than the mighty buck.Being bought out has a negative connotation. They may decide that having extra money for their communities is really helpful. Better schools and hospitals, housing, benefits, educations, better schools, etc. They'll have extra money to take care of their land. The mosse doesn;t seen any worse for the pipeline.
Your comment about casinos is very disturbing.
Being bought out has a negative connotation. They may decide that having extra money for their communities is really helpful. Better schools and hospitals, housing, benefits, educations, better schools, etc. They'll have extra money to take care of their land. The mosse doesn;t seen any worse for the pipeline.
Why is my comment about casinos disturbing. MAny Indian tribes here in the US have become very rich opening casinos on their land. No one's twisting their arms. The can decide to do it or not. Of course, I don;t know the situation with gaming in Canada, legality, etc. I know Niagara Falls has gaming. I went there and lost.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CKjfUWxUEAAD5je.jpg
But for many natives, the environment is the most important. Something money cannot buy because once sold it can never be purchased again...no matter how much money is involved.I understand. I'm retired here in NJ but in horse and farm country. The developers buy up farms and build homes. I hate it. I lived in crowded NYC all my life and enjoy the relative openness now. On the other hand, I'm financially secure for the most part. The Indians may feel differently and need the money. I have no idea. Of course, I respect it's their decision. It has nothing to do with us and what we do in America.
i tend to agree with the natives as prestige wilderness is priceless. Have you ever wandered off into wilderness that takes your breath away...and a week later you are back to your dog eat dog New Jersey world?
The left here likes to blame the increase in hurricane damage to stronger hurricanes caused by climate change.
Hurricanes have been fairly stable in strength going back a few centuries. The increase n damage is from building more in hurricane prone areas.
Like I said, I do feel in certain areas climate change is an issue, but that is mainly at the polls and low islands. But the constant hysteria is just not true and uncalled for.Which polls are you referencing?
Another issue that has pushed in this direction, the left hysteria towards nuclear, which is the only alternate viable power source to fossil fuels.
I just gave you an example. The left here likes to blame the increase in hurricane damage to stronger hurricanes caused by climate change. Hurricanes have been fairly stable in strength going back a few centuries. The increase n damage is from building more in hurricane prone areas.
Like I said, I do feel in certain areas climate change is an issue, but that is mainly at the polls and low islands. But the constant hysteria is just not true and uncalled for.
I am a strong environmentalist btw, but have found right wing environmentalism to be more likely to cause change due to the exceptance of fact over hysteria. Another issue that has pushed in this direction, the left hysteria towards nuclear, which is the only alternate viable power source to fossil fuels.
As Elon Musk recently put it, the left is losing the center, and that includes me (albeit center right).
Where i live the wind always blows from the right... ;) As a result all the trees bend over to the left.
Actually there has been a lot of hot wind blowing from the right lately.
Actually there has been a lot of hot wind blowing from the right lately.
Especially from Mr Kitchen, who pointedly avoids answering questions about his assertions.
the left leaning environmentalists
mitigation efforts the left says we should
you on the left have lost me.
But anyway, Bjorn Lomborg has done a lot of great analysis on climate change and how almost every possible outcome pushed by the left leaning environmentalists is nothing but hysteria. He also feels it is a great injustice we are doing for children, teaching them to live constant fear.
Well, by all means, if Bjorn Lomborg has done a great analysis, let's just go with what he says.
Sometimes the one man against all others is right. Churchill was derided over his views in Hitler.
I guess it is impossible to have a discussion on the internet without bringing up Hitler.
Believe it or not, I do have a life, and cant respond all the time.
This despite the fact that you've frequently posted loquaciously elsewhere in the interim.
Since you seem to enjoy wild-ass generalizations and unverifiable statements, here are a few more:
Doing nothing about climate change will make everything else irrelevant.
Fossil fuels are not the solution to our energy needs. Fossil fuels are the problem. The oil and gas industry recognized the issue of CO2 pollution back in the sixties. They hid the research.
Fossil fueled energy production at scale is clearly unsustainable.
Renewable energy sources are not "more expensive". They're the only responsible alternative.
Uranium-sourced fission energy has no viable future.
Bill Gates and some others (TerraPower) were close to building a LFTR when their research project was blocked by a politician. Anyone want to guess who? Or why?
But I have not called anyone Hitler, that's the difference.
The left has lost me. These hysterical reactions I give no credence to what so ever.
Yawn. Like I said before, the left's hysterical nature around this issue has pushed me, and so many more who started out very concerned about this issue at a younger age, away. Continue the hysteria if you want; you're just going to push more away.Like they say. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
Like they say. You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.
hysteria sold by the left
constant hysteria is just not true
the left hysteria towards nuclear
nothing but hysteria.
the hysteria of climate change
more dire and hysterical,
These hysterical reactions
Yawn. Like I said before, the left's hysterical nature
Continue the hysteria if you want
Yawn. I guess hysteria is in the eye of the beholder.
Sensible chap. I can barely believe the hysteria I see represented on this thread.
Jeremy
So sea levels haven't risen because dams have been holding the water back. I wonder if they have anything to do why temperatures have not increased or as fast as they should have?How fast should they have risen?
So sea levels haven't risen because dams have been holding the water back. I wonder if they have anything to do why temperatures have not increased or as fast as they should have?
Climate change: Dams played key role in limiting sea level rise
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-53836018
Gee, so maybe man IS affecting the climate.My second sentence was satire.
So sea levels haven't risen because dams have been holding the water back. I wonder if they have anything to do why temperatures have not increased or as fast as they should have?
Climate change: Dams played key role in limiting sea level rise
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-53836018
Re: Extreme weatherMaybe the warming going on now and still rising sea levels are a continuation of the end of the last glacial ice age. In a few thousand years, experts will be warning us how we have to do something to prevent cooling and the fall of sea levels when the situation reverses again and we enter another Ice Age.
« Reply #2119 on: Today at 05:15:16 am »
...
Let's consider the past history of sea level rise since the beginning of human civilization. Around 20,000 years ago, sea levels were about 130 metres lower than today. This period is known as the Last Glacial Maximum. Since then, sea levels have been rising at varying rates. However, 20,000 years is 200 centuries. Dividing 130 metres by 200 for an average rate of seal level rise per century, we get 650mm, which is far greater than the current rise of 156mm during the last century since industrialization.
From the following Wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level#:~:text=Sea%20level%20rise%20since%20the%20last%20glacial%20maximum,-Further%20information%3A%20Early&text=During%20deglaciation%20between%20about%2019,of%20the%20Antarctic%20ice%20sheet.
"At the onset of deglaciation about 19,000 years ago, a brief, at most 500-year long, glacio-eustatic event may have contributed as much as 10 m to sea level with an average rate of about 20 mm/yr. During the rest of the early Holocene, the rate of sea level rise varied from a low of about 6.0–9.9 mm/yr to as high as 30–60 mm/yr during brief periods of accelerated sea level rise."
The last time sea levels were higher than today, by maybe just a few metres, is thought to have been around 130,000 years ago. However, between 70,000 and 60,000 years ago there was a cold spell when sea levels were around 60 to 70 metres below current levels. This would have allowed the earliest Homo Sapiens to migrate out of Africa and the first Australian Aboriginal settlers to walk across from 'what is now' New Guinea to 'what is now' the northern coast of the island/continent of Australia, surrounded by sea.
Maybe the warming going on now and still rising sea levels are a continuation of the end of the last glacial ice age. In a few thousand years, experts will be warning us how we have to do something to prevent cooling and the fall of sea levels when the situation reverses again and we enter another Ice Age.
The problem is not change, it is the rate of change.Damage and change are different results. When beavers dam up a stream and flood a valley, that's a major change. No one would consider it damage even though many individual animals and plants will be destroyed. Man is part of nature as well. Certainly many of his activities change the environment and even damage it or parts of it. But calling adding a couple of degrees and a few feet of sea water damage rather than change is in the eye of the beholder. Nature will go on as it does in the beaver's flooded valley.
If you put a cake in the oven at 150, it'll cook slowly. If you put it in the oven at 250, it'll cook too quickly and burn.
Over a sustained period of time, the sum output of human change in the biosphere is such that it is turning the oven up.
Unlike being able to turn the oven down in your kitchen and maybe save the cake, humans do not possess the technology to undo the damage that has been done to the biosphere.
Maybe the warming going on now and still rising sea levels are a continuation of the end of the last glacial ice age. In a few thousand years, experts will be warning us how we have to do something to prevent cooling and the fall of sea levels when the situation reverses again and we enter another Ice Age.
The problem is not change, it is the rate of change.
Maybe you could publish a peer-reviewed paper describing the work you did to substantiate this theory?There are many peer-reviewed studies that show ice ages repeat. So it will start cooling off again. I'm buying extra down coats now to prepare for it.
Or maybe you could just continue making stuff up.
Certainly many of his activities change the environment and even damage it or parts of it. But calling adding a couple of degrees and a few feet of sea water damage rather than change is in the eye of the beholder.
The impact of a couple of degrees warmer is a lot more than just s few feet of sea water.There may be some displacements in certain areas. But there have been no major baleful results yet. Nature adapts a lot quicker than you think.
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F
The rate of change is such that nature does not have the time it requires to adapt. Whereas where warming may take centuries or millenia to happen naturally, allowing animals to slowly adapt (Darwinism), the rate of change here is so quick as to prevent life from adapting.
This isn't like your bevar's dam, this is much worse. This is a feedback loop.
There may be some displacements in certain areas. But there have been no major baleful results yet. Nature adapts a lot quicker than you think.
Very true! Because we are just on the beginning of the curve. Once the curve starts to steepen up, it will be too late to reverse the slope.So based on possible baleful results, that haven't happened and may happen in 50 years, we are to turn our economies topsy turvy and go into debt for trillions of dollars at a time when economies are failing due to a virus. Where is the money support to come from? I've asked this question many times before here. America for one is printing money at an amount greater than our GDP. Can your Canada afford it? Europe? China who produces a third of the world's CO2? Should we spend that money on climate to reduce sea levels by 4 inches 50 years from now or provide unemployment insurance so people can eat today?
Our grandchildren will have to worry about solar panel toxic trash as well as rising seas 30 years from now. What's needed now is Paris Accord II.
Solar Panels Are Starting to Die, Leaving Behind Toxic Trash
Photovoltaic panels are a boon for clean energy but are tricky to recycle. As the oldest ones expire, get ready for a solar e-waste glut.
https://www.wired.com/story/solar-panels-are-starting-to-die-leaving-behind-toxic-trash/
They're already destroying wind generators in Germany as they upgrade to newer models. What are they doing with all that crap?
They don't have to go into landfill, according to Don Lilly, chief executive of Global Fiberglass Solutions in Bellevue, Washington.
Mr Lilly has been transforming fibreglass composites into small pellets he calls EcoPoly.
The pellets can then be turned into injectable plastics, or highly waterproof boards that can be used in construction, he says.
Recycling wind turbines is not easy, but it can be done.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-51325101
They don't have to go into landfill, according to Don Lilly, chief executive of Global Fiberglass Solutions in Bellevue, Washington.
Mr Lilly has been transforming fibreglass composites into small pellets he calls EcoPoly.
The pellets can then be turned into injectable plastics, or highly waterproof boards that can be used in construction, he says.
So first we force free people to buy more expensive green energy generators. Then we force these formerly free people to spend more money disposing of the green generators. How do we buy back our freedom? How much will that cost?
So first we force free people to buy more expensive green energy generators. Then we force these formerly free people to spend more money disposing of the green generators. How do we buy back our freedom? How much will that cost?
So first we force free people to buy more expensive green energy generators. Then we force these formerly free people to spend more money disposing of the green generators. How do we buy back our freedom? How much will that cost?This question had nothing to do with the cost of green energy. It was a rhetorical question about the cost of liberty.
This question had nothing to do with the cost of green energy. It was a rhetorical question about the cost of liberty.
One thing I've learned on this forum is that Ray just absolutely LOVES using the word "Ultra-Supercritical".
So first we force free people to buy more expensive green energy generators. Then we force these formerly free people to spend more money disposing of the green generators. How do we buy back our freedom? How much will that cost?
Laws against littering its one thing. Spending trillions of scarce resources on green energy reducing money available to cure diseases, feed the poor, and house the homeless is another.Spending trillions of scarce resources to counteract pollution by the ancient carbon burning economy is another.
Laws against littering its one thing. Spending trillions of scarce resources on green energy reducing money available to cure diseases, feed the poor, and house the homeless is another.
No. You got it wrong. I absolutely love using the correct terminology when discussing scientific and technological ...
By scarce resources I was referring to money not oil and gas. Sorry for the confusion.
Money is not a resource, although it's supposed to represent a resource. It's basically a system of exchanging goods and services, and those goods and services are totally dependent on energy resources.
Energy supplies are the foundation of all activity in a modern society. No energy, whether from fossil fuels, solar power, or whatever, means 'back to the stone age'. Even if you are a billionaire, if there's no energy supplies, your money is worthless.
Providing a good living standard and at least moderate prosperity for the 7.8 billion people on Earth, will require huge amounts of energy, much more than is currently being used. We can't rely upon fossil fuels forever, but we can rely upon the sun, until it disappears. If it does disappear, then so does all life on Earth. Nothing we can do about that, at least in the near future. ;)
Solar and wind are pipe dreams, and a return to primitive energy sources.
Solar paint is interesting. But the article doesn't go into how much electricity it can produce for a typical home or how to collect the hydrogen that is produced by the paint. Nor does it provide the cost for converting hydrogen to electricity.
There are many ways to produce electricity that are too expensive and impractical. Even solar and wind has cause the price of electricity in Germany to escalate to 2 1/2 times that of America. That makes it impractical for poor countries. For all its problems, coal, natural gas, oil, nuclear, and hydro are still the most practical and cost efficient methods.
Germany pays almost twice as much as France and produces 10 times the emissions.
Meaningless rhetoric without attribution.
Me, I prefer using “unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine”.
Powering the world off of solar and wind is nothing but romance, and I get it, living in harmony with nature. Only problem is, it has never worked and does not here, unless you want to go back to hunter gatherer living.
Okay, well lets see. They have a 51% capacity from solar and wind, but have never broken a 20% threshold of actual electricity used from those sources. So, to make up for the inconsistency of solar and wind, they build coal fire plants like it going out of style, which is what leads to their emissions.
France on the other hand just uses nuclear, which can produce energy in demand, so no need to supplemental plants of any kind, leading to lower emissions.
As I said, solar and wind is nothing but a high school romance you still can got over losing in your 50s.
At the risk of repeating myself: "meaningless rhetoric without attribution."
I'm surprised that a photographer would have such a troglodyte attitude, considering how remarkably fast the technological improvement of digital cameras has been since the 1980's and 1990's, and how much the cost of each new generation of digital cameras has fallen in tandem with increased efficiency and sophistication.
When I first came across this site, Michael Reichmann was praising the 3mp Canon D30 which he claimed could produce an image equal to the quality of 35mm film on an A4 size print. For prints larger than A4, 35mm film still had the edge.
I was interested, but the price was too high. I waited until the 6mp Canon D60 came out, and ever since then I've been gradually upgrading as sensor quality improved and prices fell. My latest purchase, the Nikon Z50 with the two kit lenses, is an absolute bargain, about 10x the quality and sophistication of the original Canon D30 and a fifth of the price. ;)
If there's a will to continue developing solar technology, the degree of improvement, from this point on, could be similar to the degree of improvement in digital camera technology over the past two decades.
We all know that the sun shines intermittently in any given location, and even if it usually shines all day in the desert, it doesn't shine at night. However, there are obvious solutions which you seem to ignore. Battery storage is currently too expensive for a household to become totally self-sufficient at a reasonable price, but as battery technology develops, as digital cameras have developed, there will be a point in the future (most probably) when solar panels and solar paint, on roofs, walls and windows, in conjunction with advanced battery storage, provide very cheap and affordable energy, especially when one includes the benefit of recharging one's Electric Vehicle at no extra cost. How much does the average person spend on gasoline for their car each year?
There is also the option of including a 'Virtual Power Plant' within a suburban community of households with battery storage, where the excess power in one household is distributed to another household with a shortage of supply.
"A VPP is a collection of home solar batteries that provide on-demand battery power in order to support the electricity grid in times of need. This type of power plant helps stabilize the grid and prevent blackouts while also lowering overall electricity costs but it is typically overlooked when solutions are more broadly considered."
Another much broader solution is to connect numerous areas around the world with 'High Voltage Direct Current' transmission lines, preferably underground or accompanying long distance water pipes, or placed under the sea bed. HVDC transmission lines can transmit electricity over thousands of kilometres, with relatively little loss of energy. There are already a many such lines installed across Europe. Refer attached image from Wikipedia.
Regarding Nuclear Power, I agree that it is a viable alternative to fossil fuels, but there is a huge problem with the nuclear waste and the decommissioning of Nuclear Plants that have served their purpose. We've already discussed the future problems of recycling millions of solar panels, and that this future cost should be included in the cost of electricity generated from those solar panels.
Imagine if there were tens of thousands of nuclear power plants around the world. What would be the cost of successfully disposing of the waste without environment harm? How often would we experience a terrible disaster like Chernobyl and Fukushima?
Here's an article which addresses the problems that France faces.
"Most fuel unloaded from nuclear reactors in France is reprocessed; however, due to its excessive heat it first has to be cooled in 4m-deep ‘pools’ of water for several years.
This process generates intermediate and high-level waste.
The latter, also known as long-lived waste, is vitrified. This generates immense heat and requires the spent fuel to be cooled for several decades before it can be permanently stored and disposed of. Intermediate-level waste follows a similar treatment process.
After decades of cooling, France, like most other nuclear power generating countries, has no long-term solution in place for high and intermediate spent fuel waste disposal.
For now there is no rush at least, as Hoorelbecke says the disposal of high-level waste being produced at present will only happen around 2080, more than five to eight decades after reprocessing."
https://www.power-technology.com/features/managing-nuclear-waste-france-long-short-game/
Here's another article which addresses the problems of decommissioning.
"How much have France, Germany and UK set aside for decommissioning?
Whereas Germany has set aside €38 billion to decommission 17 nuclear reactors, and the UK Nuclear Decommissioning Authority estimates that clean-up of UK’s 17 nuclear sites will cost between €109‒250 billion over the next 120 years, France has set aside only €23 billion to decommissioning its 58 reactors. To put this in context, according to the European Commission,
Soon EDF will have to start the biggest, most complex and costliest nuclear decommissioning and radioactive waste management programme on earth."
https://energypost.eu/how-much-will-it-really-cost-to-decommission-the-aging-french-nuclear-fleet/
I hope you can see, Joe, that I have completely demolished your argument, and I hope you are honest enough to admit it. :D
Those suckers from Califronia. Liberals who dwell on stupid shit like climate change and eat their babies.
Sorry Jeremy, I shouldn't of said that. Here is an interesting article about myths of fire. As I write this it is literally raining ash outside from the massive Creek Fire that is only 10 miles from Yosemite. This may become the largest wildfire in California history.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20181113-five-myths-about-wildfires?fbclid=IwAR2XXNDKxMYxnXCkLfkL9vUTQnX33DYwxomww6tW9pCoazNqLEsPgAA40Ks
Sorry Ray, but you are pushing an impossible dream. Probably the most damning evidence against solar and wind is from a German study publish in the last year that looks at energy return from various sources of power vs energy put into producing those sources.
What I mean by this if you add up all of the energy to build a plant (from mining to production to construction to usage), how many more times of energy do you get out?
For coal, it is about 30 times more. For hydroelectric, it is about 36 times more. Oil and natural gas is roughly 65 and 80 times more, respectively. Nuclear is over 200 times more.
Wind and solar is 1.9 to 3.6 times more. Burning coal to make electricity is, on average, 15 times more efficient.
Total solar efficiency increases in the last 10 years was just 2%. That's it, even with all of the money Obama and others poured into it, only a 2% increase. rise just like Germany and CA. CA energy prices are 6 times the national average and their emissions are not any less.
Now, in response to your point about the increases in digital camera technology and juxtaposing that with solar, we are now far past the point of diminishing returns on digital cameras, just like with solar. Really, can you name a ground breaking advancement in image quality in the last 5 or 6 years? Not user features, but actual IQ?
It's a long post, Joe, so I'll address just a few points at a time. The following 'scientific' article addresses the fall in the production cost, the increase in efficiency, and the fall in the price of solar panels between 1975 and 2012, in terms of cost and price per watt.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421518305196?via%3Dihub
Refer attached image from the article, of a graph which shows the module costs (in orange), and the price (in purple).
Since 2012, where this graph ends, there have been further, significant reductions in manufacturing costs, although such reports I've found on the internet are from sites that are promoting the use of 'green energy' so one would expect a certain degree of bias.
However, here's one such site: https://www.pv-magazine.com/2020/06/03/solar-costs-have-fallen-82-since-2010/
"The levelized cost of energy generated by large scale solar plants is around $0.068/kWh, compared to $0.378 ten years ago and the price fell 13.1% between 2018 and last year alone, according to figures released by the International Renewable Energy Agency."
The efficiency of the conversion from light to electricity, is only one aspect of the over all increase in efficiency. One cannot have any production process which is 100% efficient. That would be equivalent to 'perpetual motion'. However, if one halves the production, installation and maintenance costs of the solar panels, over a period of time, that represent a 100% increase in the 'cost efficiency'. If one also doubles the durability of the panels over the same period of time, then that represents an increase in cost efficiency of 400% in relation to the starting point. Don't you agree?
Technology usually progresses gradually and continuously. The 8k video capability of the Canon 5R, the 5 to 8 stops of image stabilization of mirrorless cameras with IBIS used in conjunction with lens IS or VR, the lighter weight of mirrorless cameras including the lenses designed for them, the remarkable dynamic range of Nikon cameras in general, and the increase in pixel count to 45mp for 35mm full frame, and up to 32mp for Canon APS-C, might not be considered ground breaking within the last 5 or 6 years. However, if you add up all these improvements that have taken place during the last 10 to 20 years, plus many more I haven't mentioned, it's the equivalent of a massive ground-breaking improvement. Wouldn't you agree? ;)
There are also rumors that Canon has been developing, for some time now, a 100mp and even a 150mp 35mm full frame. That would certainly be possible, but whether or not there is a market demand for such a product is another issue.
Okay, so the cost per KWh hour is going down ... when the plant is actually producing energy. But the majority of the time, the plant is not producing any energy. Remember, the best solar farm in the world (insofar as what percentage of the time it is producing power) in NV only produces energy 33% of the time. The mean 67% of the time it is sitting ideal not doing anything, but we dont get our money back that we spent on raw materials and construction during them time.
So we need to look at the overall cost including when no energy is being produced, which is why the German study I sited showing energy return given energy used to produce is much better.
Additionally, like I stated so many times before, the only way to produce cheap electricity is by have a modern grid with the exact amount of energy in it needed at the time with as little energy conversions as possible. Solar can not produce energy on demand, which means you need to store the energy to retrieve it later, adding two more energy conversions and wasting energy in the process. This greatly increases the cost without even accounting for the cost of the batteries.
This alone makes solar a pipe dream.
And last, what say you about the shear amount of large birds both wind and solar farms kill? Should we just extinct eagles and hawks for your romance?
There is a report of damage accelerating in two major Antarctic glaciers. It is published in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science: https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/09/08/1912890117 The investigators do not predict what this might mean for sea level rise but that it is worrying as glaciers lose stability pieces can break off and lead to melting. The paper has some nice images and graphs.
If the glaciers slip into the sea, it will be an opportunity for Australia and other countries to tow the icebergs to their coastline for irrigation purposes. ;)This is not a new idea as I saw some papers on this back in the early 1980s. The did a cost analysis considering the energy needed to move the ice as well as how much would be lost to melting during transit. It was not an economically viable proposition for the US but given the closeness of Australia, it just might be!
C'mon now, Joe. Surely you know that the sun has always shined on our planet 24 hours a day if one includes the numerous different locations on our planet at any given time.
I mentioned in a previous post the benefits of High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) transmission which is a much more efficient method of transmitting power over long distances than High Voltage Alternating Current.
The following article addresses the situation.
https://www.powermag.com/benefits-of-high-voltage-direct-current-transmission-systems/
“AC systems have lower capital costs, but a much steeper line slope as you increase the distance. Along the length, they need compensation, especially at high voltages, because they require what we call VAR [volt-ampere reactive] support.” “HVDC systems have a much higher capital cost, but as the distance increases the slope of the line is flatter. So, there is a point where these two lines intersect, and that’s your break-even point—that’s a function of distance, voltage, and power transfer.”
"You can also run longer DC lines underground. So, there can be a big advantage to DC where permitting and visual impact is a concern.”
If we combine the long-distance transmission benefits of HVDC with advanced battery storage, which will inevitably improve as technology progresses, then it's technologically feasible and cost-effective to power the entire world economy on solar power alone.
However, I do understand that there are always major, initial, costs involved when a society changes a paradigm. The installation of hundreds of thousands of kilometres of under-sea and underground HVDC cables is a very expensive initial capital cost, and that initial cost can be a major obstacle, which is why this paradigm shift from fossil fuels to renewables will take, and should take, a long time.
Since I'm not at all worried about the climate consequences of minuscule amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, I don't care how long it takes, as long as we continue to make progress. The source of energy from fossil fuels is always a major expense involving the mining, storage and transporting of the coal and oil. However, the source of energy from the sun, and its transportation, is totally free. ;)
Probably not as serious an issue as the oils spills that affect the life in the oceans, the accidents that coal miners sometimes experience, as well as the lung problems due to coal dust, and of course the terrible conditions that prevail in undeveloped countries that mine the various metals used in solar panels and batteries, often involving the employment of under-aged children.
Environmental issues related to toxic waste and a lack of recycling, has always been a problem throughout the world, and this will continue to be an increasing problem in the future if it is not addressed.
Solar panels and batteries must be recycled after they have served their purpose, and how to do this efficiently should be the subject of further research, and appropriate regulations enforced.
But anyway, it great to see you guys go full on paganism with your climate change rhetoric over the last few days. It's amazing how climate change can be used as cover for all of the left's incompetence, such as horrible forest management.
Joe, we embrace and love you as well. Sorry, this is about someone who is just not an authority on the statements he makes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3foXJfWlgoM
Blasting “dumb scientists for not thinking of this before,” Donald J. Trump said that the planet would cool down “right away” if everyone would just turn on the air-conditioning.
Post one peer reviewed paper from a scientific journal.
Have you read this? By the I have known this individual for many years and have great respect for his research. https://www.amazon.com/Fire-Californias-Ecosystems-Jan-Wagtendonk/dp/0520286839
I dont want to see forests killed in crown fires.
But you can write more than me and you are a wonderful speller. PS. I like your socks.
None of us do unless it it is the right place at the right time. The problem is you don't understand the science or the ecology. But we do agree that fire should be fought by fire. But, making the acertation that we just need to pick up sticks in the forest is not based on any science. I could also argue that you are a crazy pagan, but that would just be hurtful.
Following Trump's news conference yesterday, the National Review posted an editorial promoting forest management as the way to control forest fires in California. Last time I saw a figure for the devastation so far is 3.3 million acres burned. Has anyone calculated the number of people and time frame required, and the total cost of clearing brush from 3.3 million acres? From all of the forest area in California, Oregon, and Washington? I am trying to get a feel for the size and scope of the suggested project. I have been to several of the national and state parks in California and it sure looks like a big job.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/09/california-forest-mismanagement-a-disaster/#slide-1
Stanford is wrong?Because standford has done so little research regarding this topic!
Following Trump's news conference yesterday, the National Review posted an editorial promoting forest management as the way to control forest fires in California. Last time I saw a figure for the devastation so far is 3.3 million acres burned. Has anyone calculated the number of people and time frame required, and the total cost of clearing brush from 3.3 million acres? From all of the forest area in California, Oregon, and Washington? I am trying to get a feel for the size and scope of the suggested project. I have been to several of the national and state parks in California and it sure looks like a big job.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/09/california-forest-mismanagement-a-disaster/#slide-1
Forest management seems like a good idea. What sort of manpower, time, and money are we talking about to solve the problem?
You are still not addressing the heart of the issue that I mentioned a couple times.
We need at least 10 times the amount of energy produced than what we put into producing it for our economy to thrive.
Solar and wind gives us just a 1.9 to 3.6 return.
It's a pipe dream, that's it. That's why CA cant provide the amount of energy it needs, why they had to implement rolling blackouts and why they are extending the shut down of other types of plants. It will never work.
Nuclear is the only option to get us off of fossil fuels.
Until we can agree upon what is science and what is not we can't have this conversation.
Would you care to explain how these calculations of 1.9 to 3.6 return are obtained, Joe? Surely you know that I'm not the sort of person who blindly accepts a statement that supports a particular view, simply because it's linked to some study which is probably biased. Are these figures from the German study you referred to in a previous post, but didn't provide the link to? Were the figures calculated decades ago when the manufacturing costs of solar panels were much higher?
There are frequent claims from 'climate alarmists' that the cost of electricity from solar and wind is now cheaper than the the same amount of electricity produced from fossil fuels, but those of us who are objective and unbiased realize that such calculations tend to ignore the additional costs of providing a continuous supply of electricity in regions where the sun is not shining, or the wind not blowing, at a particular time when the electricity is needed.
However, as I've mentioned before, there are solutions to these problems that don't require expensive fossil-fuel back-up. These solution are HVDC transmission lines and battery storage. Research into these solutions continues, and I see no reason why eventually solar power alone, without subsidies, will be cheaper than the current energy from fossil fuels and nuclear power plants, taking everything into consideration, including the cost of recycling solar panels and the cost of safely disposing of the waste from nuclear power plants, and so on.
The following article provides an overview of HVDC.
https://medium.com/predict/future-of-electricity-transmission-is-hvdc-9800a545cd18
"HVDC lines always deliver more of the power put into them regardless of the distance that the electricity travels, which is a significant factor in and of itself. But the big reason this is important is that it’s cheaper at longer distances over land and at very short distances underwater and underground. This means that it’s very useful for bringing electricity long distances from renewable locations, connecting islands to the mainland and even continents to one another potentially."
This aspect of HVDC transmission being cheaper, even at short distances when underground, appeals to me greatly because of my appreciation of the beauty of the natural landscape. Overhead power lines are an eyesore, as well as windmills. I'd prefer a future which relies mainly upon solar power from rooftops and deserts.
Many houses in the suburbs of Australia have solar panels installed on their roofs, but usually only a fraction of one side of the roof is covered, representing one quarter of the total roof area, more or less.
There's no technological reason why future houses could not be designed with the entire roof area covered with solar panels. Refer attached images.
https://cleantechnica.com/2020/09/11/everything-you-need-to-know-about-version-3-of-teslas-new-solarglass-roof-tiles/
Imagine a future where it becomes the norm to include solar technology in the entire roof area of each and every building on the planet, and all solar farms are located in arid or desert regions where the land cannot be used for agriculture, and where the sun shines on most days. The power generated from such farms can be efficiently transported to the cities and other countries via underground HVDC cables that are not an eyesore.
It's not a pipe 'dream', Joe. The pipes are already a reality, containing HVDC transmission lines. ;D
Wow, they look like nice roofs. Too bad we are trending towards urbanization living in apartment buildings throughout the world, making solar roofs a moot point.
I also would like to point out it is twice as expensive to produce electricity from solar roofs, which is largely subsidized, as it is from farms. Fact is, without any subsidizes, solar power would not be possible. Fossil fuels, hydro-electric and nuclear would all continuing to operate, albeit slightly more expensive.
Plus, the idea of connecting the entire world through one grid would not only be nearly impossible and extremely costly, but from a national security perspective foolish and would leave us open to being vulnerable to enemies.
Batteries would help. But we're a long way from making them with enough storage at reasonable cost. The Tesla plant in the USA is the largest in the world. It would take them 300 years to make enough batteries to store power needs for the world for just one days use.
What do you do with all the plastic in the wind propellers?
Ray, Using someone else's solar panels when it's dark in your area would require double the number of sensors. After all, when it sunny in their area, they want power for their needs as well. Ditto with wind generators. That's why you need fossil fuel secondary plants to providee energy when its dark or calm.
Batteries would help. But we're a long way from making them with enough storage at reasonable cost. The Tesla plant in the USA is the largest in the world. It would take them 300 years to make enough batteries to store power needs for the world for just one days use.
Then think of all the manufacturing environmental issues created. What about disposal when they;re done in a few years? Germany is already replacing their wind generators. Although they have 50% or more power generated from green, their energy cost per KWH are 2 1/2 times America's.
Then you have mining operations, tractors, fossil fuel to mine and manufacturer solar and wind, etc. What do you do with all the plastic in the wind propellers?
Alan, when it's dark in your area, your demand for electricity might be less. Demand fluctuates all the time, throughout the day and throughout the seasons. The most efficient power plants, whether coal or nuclear, are 'base load', that is, they produce electricity at their maximum efficiency all the time. If production is scaled down because of lower demand during certain periods of the day or night, the efficiency of the power plant, during those times, is reduced.Maximum load for a local area will be the hottest minute of the worse day of the summer. The grid has to be able to supply that period even if it's only for minutes. So on those hot minutes, let's say in north America, the entire continent will need maximum supply. Everyone pretty much will be using all their air conditioners, offices in cities will be filled, etc. It's at that time that all the solar cells will be maxed out for their local use. Unless they over-designed the quantity of cells and wind for other regions, there won't be anything left for the other regions. So you'd have to overbuild all the non-fossil fuel generation.
We live in a world where hardly anything is used continuously at the same rate. Your car probably sits in the garage or a car park most of the time. Your house is empty whenever you are away. A fruit tree produces its fruit only once a year, but fortunately, because of international trade, you can probably eat any fruit you desire at any time of the year. Consider the long, underground HVDC power lines, as trade routes for energy supplies.
We know from the history of technological development that products are continually improving whenever there is a will to improve them or a demand for the product. Rocket technology began with the Germans during WWII and progressed to landing men on the moon in 1969. The first digital cameras in the 1980's were often less than 1mp and very expensive. Look at them now. ;D
https://www.digitalkameramuseum.de/en/cameras/item/kodak-professional-dcs
Environmental issues and disposal of waste have always been a problem. The mining of metals to produce solar panels is not necessarily a greater problem than the mining of coal and oil, and the mining of metals to build the coal power plants and oil storage tanks, and build the lorries, trains and ships to transport the coal and oil from the mines to the power plants, and then dispose of them later, after they've served their purpose.
It might well be the case that the recycling of windmills and solar panels in the future will not be properly addressed, due to government incompetence and a lack of planning, but that's another issue that applies to the waste disposal of all products.
Maximum load for a local area will be the hottest minute of the worse day of the summer. The grid has to be able to supply that period even if it's only for minutes. So on those hot minutes, let's say in north America, the entire continent will need maximum supply.
Wow! So when it's hot in North America, it's hot over the entire North American continent at the same time. That should make it easier to plan for such conditions. ;)You're picking the wrong times by using 7AM times in the early morning when it's cooler and nobody's at work yet. Change that to the worse time for electricity needs. When it's noon in California on the west coast, it's 3pm on the East Coast. That's the hottest parts of the day when air conditioners will be maxed out. There's no reserve. Look at California now. They're having blackouts because it's so hot. Because they've shut down many fossil fuel plants in an ill advised action to go green, they've starved their own grid. Where would the energy come for them to ship electricity to the East Coast when they don't even have enough for their own use?
Isn't there a 3 hour time difference between the West coast and East coast of North America? When everyone is cooking their evening dinner at 6pm-7pm on the East coast, in homes and restaurants, it should be 3 to 4pm on the West coast when the sun is still shining bright and delivering power along the HVDC lines from West to East to meet the increased demand in the East. Likewise, when everyone is cooking breakfast on the West coast at 6 to 7am, it should be 9 to 10am on the East Coast when everyone has finished breakfast and is travelling to work in their electric car, or train or bus.
Whilst it's true that battery storage is currently expensive, hydro power is very efficient. Using the excess power in the grid from all sources, including wind and solar, to pump water back into the dam, is an excellent way of efficiently storing energy to meet peak demand.
The technology of HVDC transmission is also improving. The latest technology is described as UHVDC (Ultra-High-Voltage).
"China currently leads in the construction of HVDC transmission lines in the world today. China has also successfully implemented ultra‐high‐voltage direct current (UHVDC) transmission lines in recent years (rated at 800 kV and above).
China is currently planning to build the Changji‐Guquan UHVDC link between Xinjiang regions in the northwestto Anhui province in the eastern region of China. The UHVDC line is expected to be rated at 1100 kVvoltage, 3000 km in length, and 12 gigawatt (GW) of transmission capacity. When completed, this project is expected to set world records for HVDC lines in terms of voltage level, transmission capacity, and line length."
https://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/electricity/hvdctransmission/pdf/transmission.pdf
You're picking the wrong times by using 7AM times in the early morning when it's cooler and nobody's at work yet.
Change that to the worse time for electricity needs. When it's noon in California on the west coast, it's 3pm on the East Coast. That's the hottest parts of the day when air conditioners will be maxed out.
There's no reserve. Look at California now. They're having blackouts because it's so hot. Because they've shut down many fossil fuel plants in an ill advised action to go green, they've starved their own grid. Where would the energy come for them to ship electricity to the East Coast when they don't even have enough for their own use?
After losing power for 4 days a few weeks ago due to a storm that rolled through here in New Jersey, I'm investigating installing a 22KW natural gas generator. It would cover just about everything for the house. I was trying to figure out if it made sense to put in solar instead so I can gain from its use during normal times. But the solar would have to work at night as well if I lose grid power. I could add batteries for the solar, but I don't think you can put in enough to run stuff all night. Otherwise there's no point to put in solar instead of a gas fired emergency generator as far as I can figure. Any ideas?
It's a multi-variable analysis that changes with time. It depends at least on the price of gasoline and the efficiency/cost of solar, both of which change with time. There is availability of gasoline, solar repair facilities, where you live, etc. These are all decisions that are different for different people in different locations. I don't see the point of being doctrinaire about it.Thanks for your ideas. The reason I'm thinking of solar, is because an emergency generator is very expensive. But it sits there doing nothing except when you lose grid power. If I'm going to spend so much, solar seems good except it won't work at night without a lot of batteries which is what I would need if I lose grid power.
Ray, I don't disagree with most of what you say. yY original point was only that you won't get people to personally pay for more solar cells than they need to supply their own homes. So when they're using them to supply electricity for their own homes, there probably won't be anything left to send elsewhere. I was watching YouTube. There was a guy with a small farm who was into his 12th year of solar panels. He still had another 12 years to go to break even. Frankly, he'll never break even because his system wonl;t last 25 years. And he sells electricity back into the grid to offset his costs. So that might be an example of how like you say, solar can be distributed to others. But that means he's only doing it when he's not using it. I'm not sure how that alleviates the total requirements as Germany has proven with its higher costs for power.
After losing power for 4 days a few weeks ago due to a storm that rolled through here in New Jersey, I'm investigating installing a 22KW natural gas generator. It would cover just about everything for the house. I was trying to figure out if it made sense to put in solar instead so I can gain from its use during normal times. But the solar would have to work at night as well if I lose grid power. I could add batteries for the solar, but I don't think you can put in enough to run stuff all night. Otherwise there's no point to put in solar instead of a gas fired emergency generator as far as I can figure. Any ideas?
Or do what we always do when we loose power during a hurricane for a few weeks here in the swamps .... put screens in the windows, open them, use a hand fan, and persist. Very low cost, very energy efficient, and very reliable !\Convince my wife. ::)
Alan, I have a small PVP system on my roof, covering about 1/8th of the total roof area. It was installed 11 years ago. The incentive was a very generous feed-in tariff which unfortunately will end for me in 2028. The initial installation cost of $3,500 has probably been repaid twice over by now, as a result of my significantly reduced electricity bills, which have sometimes been in credit.The same problem with rebate costs being passed along to grid users occurs here as well. People generally richer than others get taxpayers to pay for their installations. Then the additional cost is passed along to poor grid users. Totally unfair. It's like what happen with Tesla electric cars. Affluent people were purchasing $100,000 Tesla cars with taxpayer rebates paid by poorer taxpayers. So the poor pay for green. The rich pay less for energy. Totally upside down policy.
If I had covered my entire roof with solar panels, 11 years ago, I would have made a substantial profit by now. However, the state government no longer provides such a generous feed-in tariff to new installers of solar panels, because so many people were installing more panels than they needed and, in effect, making a good profit by selling electricity at the inflated price of the feed-in tariff, resulting in higher electricity prices for those who did not have solar panels installed.
Since my solar panels are connected to the grid, they don't produce power if there is a grid failure. The following article explains why.
"From a technical standpoint, the electricity generated by your solar panels isn't constant and varies depending on things like time of day, shade and so forth. Similarly, your power needs aren't constant, and will change as you switch appliances on and off.
With the grid active and working, this isn't a problem. The energy from your solar panels combines with energy from the reservoir of the power grid to supply a steady level of power to suit your needs. With the grid off, this isn't possible, so your solar panels shut off automatically to avoid delivering too much or too little power and damaging the electronics in your house."
https://www.finder.com.au/solar-panels-power-outage#:~:text=Only%20solar%20panels%20that%20are,will%20work%20during%20an%20outage.
A bank of back-up batteries would solve the problem, but they are still too expensive. If there is a breakthrough in battery technology, resulting in significantly cheaper, lighter, and more durable batteries, with greater storage capacity, then so many problems with renewables and intermittent energy supplies will be solved.
The same problem with rebate costs being passed along to grid users occurs here as well. People generally richer than others get taxpayers to pay for their installations. Then the additional cost is passed along to poor grid users. Totally unfair. It's like what happen with Tesla electric cars. Affluent people were purchasing $100,000 Tesla cars with taxpayer rebates paid by poorer taxpayers. So the poor pay for green. The rich pay less for energy. Totally upside down policy.
You just reminded me that Generac who makes emergency generators that I'm considering for my home, does have battery backup to a certain extent. But only to handle a three ton AC. Mine is 4 ton. It would be great to purchase one system that would give me solar plus be able to backup for nighttime use so I can operate off grid.
\Convince my wife. ::)
Then maybe elect a better functioning government? I know this thread is not about politics, but what you are referring to is local/national energy policy. Change it, before it ruins your current and future life.First, the government should drop all rebate plans. If Biden becomes President, we'll have more not less and the cost of energy is sure to go up.
Try reducing your nightly power requirements ...
It's always more efficient to reduce the need for energy, than to reduce the effects of overconsumption. Prevention is better than cure.
First, the government should drop all rebate plans.
Including gifts to Big Corn and Big Oil and relocation incentives to Amazon et al. GREAT idea! Sign me up. Nothing worse than corporate socialism, especially when they hand out taxpayer money to people who are ALREADY rich and successful. We see eye to eye on this on.
Including gifts to Big Corn and Big Oil and relocation incentives to Amazon et al. GREAT idea! Sign me up. Nothing worse than corporate socialism, especially when they hand out taxpayer money to people who are ALREADY rich and successful. We see eye to eye on this on.Special Federal government favors and tax incentives to big oil and corn should be dropped too. We agree there. Playing favorites is bad as it distorts the free market. You have good money chasing bad ideas.
"Extinction Rebellion", in German "Rebellion against extinction", is the name of a climate activist group that calls for radical climate protection in Europe with civil disobedience. The more CO₂ gets into the atmosphere and heats up climate change, it is assumed, the more likely a massive extinction of species on earth is.
An enormous increase in CO₂ in the atmosphere once triggered a mass extinction of animals and plants. Researchers have reconstructed the disaster - and are drawing worrying conclusions about the current climate crisis.
According to the researchers' findings, the causes of the mass extinction were gigantic volcanic activities in what is now Siberia. The volcanic eruptions that lasted for several thousand years threw huge amounts of carbon into the air. In total, almost 360,000 billion tons of CO₂ were released into the atmosphere, according to the study authors. "That is more than 40 times the amount of carbon that has been burned since the industrial revolution, and also of the fossil fuels that are still in the ground," says lead author Hana Jurikova from the Geomar Center in Kiel.
That would have led to the reproduction of certain plants and in turn boosted photosynthesis. As a result, the oxygen content in the sea has dropped significantly - similar to strong algae growth in a lake after a hot summer. But there is no life without oxygen - many animals and plants died. The acidification did the rest and destroyed coral reefs and decimated shellfish populations.
According to the study, the massive CO₂ emissions from volcanoes have led to a strong greenhouse effect, which has led to extreme warming and acidification of the oceans. These effects are also occurring in the current climate crisis - albeit in a much weaker manner. Today's CO₂ increase happens much faster. The chain of disasters is quite detailed, but devastating: Due to the high CO₂ content in the atmosphere and acid rain, rocks and stones, for example, are weathered more quickly. Their remains were washed into the oceans and rivers faster and would have brought in more nutrients such as phosphates and nitrates.
Journal "Nature Geoscience" published a description of the largest mass extinctions in the history of the earth 252 million years ago.
https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/die-bisher-letzte-klimaapokalypse-und-was-wir-daraus-lernen-koennen-a-e41e887a-b050-4533-9307-c4415f37e15b
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-020-00646-4
I am relieved that all of that happened before the polar bears came on the scene.Maybe humans were all here back then and God gave us a second chance?
Maybe humans were all here back then and God gave us a second chance?
In the last 40 years, multi-year ice has shrunk by about half. At some time in the next few decades, scientists expect the world will see an ice-free Arctic Ocean throughout the summer, with worrying consequences for the rest of the climate system. That prospect got much closer in 2020, due in part to the exceptional summer heatwave that roiled the Russian Arctic.
For the first time since records began, the Laptev Sea in northern Siberia has not begun to freeze by late October.
(https://www.economist.com/img/b/1000/590/90/sites/default/files/20201031_WOC015.png)
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/10/28/more-bad-news-for-the-arctic-the-laptev-sea-hasnt-frozen
https://theconversation.com/arctic-ocean-why-winter-sea-ice-has-stalled-and-what-it-means-for-the-rest-of-the-world-148753
In the last 40 years, multi-year ice has shrunk by about half. At some time in the next few decades, scientists expect the world will see an ice-free Arctic Ocean throughout the summer, with worrying consequences for the rest of the climate system. That prospect got much closer in 2020, due in part to the exceptional summer heatwave that roiled the Russian Arctic.
Rabbits were introduced to Australia with the arrival of the First Fleet in 1788.[2] A population of 24 rabbits released near Geelong in 1859 to be hunted for sport. Within 50 years rabbits had spread throughout the most of the continent with devastating impact on indigenous flora and fauna.
Wouldn't it be fair to include the positive effects of an ice free Arctic as well so the public can fairly assess both the good as well as the bad consequences?
I don't think it would be fair. It is a major disruption to the world climate, and we are now only in the early warming stage.Where you live, in Canada, you need some more heat. How many Canadians are going to complain if its a little warmer? You'll save on winter coats and be able to canoe more. At your age, you shouldn't be shoveling snow anyway.
Trying to find something positive about the warming would be akin to justification of bringing the rabbits to Australia and pointing out the benefits to hunters and gun sellers in that country. Or bringing the rats to Hawaii and gloating about the enrichment of the fauna there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_plagues_in_Australia
Sure, when you do the charts you can put whatever you want in them. Perhaps you could save yourself some trouble and go out on the internet and find some charts you like better.I don't need charts. I gave the reasons why less ice in the Arctic Sea is good. Apparently you missed it. Let me repeat it again here.
Where you live, in Canada, you need some more heat. How many Canadians are going to complain if its a little warmer? You'll save on winter coats and be able to canoe more. At your age, you shouldn't be shoveling snow anyway.
I don't need charts. I gave the reasons why less ice in the Arctic Sea is good. Apparently you missed it. Let me repeat it again here.
These include the huge fish populations now available to feed the world, mineral exploration, and the ability of ships to sail the northern route eliminating thousands of miles of transit, reducing sailing time by weeks and months, and wasteful oil use and pollution and CO2 to power those ships.
Well, do up some charts to prove it. Do you think anybody will believe you just because you say it?Yes. Reasonable people who don't have an ax to grind will see my point as rather logical. Charts won't change the minds of others who are obsessive over climate change. They'd follow their beliefs blindly to the gates of hell, where it's rather warm as well.
Yes. Reasonable people who don't have an ax to grind will see my point as rather logical.
USA TODAY - February 28, 2019
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news//2019/02/28/climate-change-shrinking-fish-population-worldwide (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/02/28/climate-change-shrinking-fish-population-worldwide/3018540002/)
Farewell, fish-and-chips? Atlantic cod, many other fish dwindling as globe warms
Fish in the Northeast Atlantic – including cod, the prime ingredient in fish-and-chips – saw a dramatic drop of 34 percent in the past several decades as the Earth warmed.
And it's not only cod: many other species of fish are in hot water – literally.
Warming oceans from human-caused climate change has shrunk the populations of many fish species around the world, according to the study released Thursday.
Looking ahead, "future fisheries production may be at even greater risk considering that, owing to (human-caused) climate change, the oceans are continuing to warm even faster than originally predicted," said Australian scientist Éva Plagányi in a commentary that accompanied the study.
Additionally, the study only looked at how warming oceans affect fish and did not take into account other climate-driven impacts, such as ocean acidification, which can also lead to marine populations declines. The world's seas are becoming increasingly acidic because of the rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
The study was published in the peer-reviewed journal Science.
USA TODAY - February 28, 2019The world's human population is at 7 1/2 billion and growing. We're eating them all. We're like sharks. I'm surprised you missed that statistic. You're usually very thorough.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news//2019/02/28/climate-change-shrinking-fish-population-worldwide (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/02/28/climate-change-shrinking-fish-population-worldwide/3018540002/)
Farewell, fish-and-chips? Atlantic cod, many other fish dwindling as globe warms
Fish in the Northeast Atlantic – including cod, the prime ingredient in fish-and-chips – saw a dramatic drop of 34 percent in the past several decades as the Earth warmed.
And it's not only cod: many other species of fish are in hot water – literally.
Warming oceans from human-caused climate change has shrunk the populations of many fish species around the world, according to the study released Thursday.
Looking ahead, "future fisheries production may be at even greater risk considering that, owing to (human-caused) climate change, the oceans are continuing to warm even faster than originally predicted," said Australian scientist Éva Plagányi in a commentary that accompanied the study.
Additionally, the study only looked at how warming oceans affect fish and did not take into account other climate-driven impacts, such as ocean acidification, which can also lead to marine populations declines. The world's seas are becoming increasingly acidic because of the rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
The study was published in the peer-reviewed journal Science.
Yes. Reasonable people who don't have an ax to grind will see my point as rather logical. Charts won't change the minds of others who are obsessive over climate change. They'd follow their beliefs blindly to the gates of hell, where it's rather warm as well.
Reasonable people can observe the available facts and project into the future.
The world's human population is at 7 1/2 billion and growing. We're eating them all. We're like sharks. I'm surprised you missed that statistic. You're usually very thorough.
So it is even worse than we thought. The population is increasing and the number of fish to eat is going down.
Reasonable people can observe the available facts and project into the future.I never said we should not prepare. What I said is we have to have all the facts, good as well as bad, to prepare well.
Less reasonable people look at a snapshot in time and don't project the current trends into the future. One such example is the uncontrolled spread of the new virus. Early this year, somebody said: "We have it totally under control. It's one person coming in from China, and we have it under control. It's going to be just fine." Then one month later, as the U.S. health officials warned that the coronavirus pandemic might stay with the country for some time, that person said a "miracle" might make the coronavirus pandemic "disappear." "It's going to disappear. One day — it's like a miracle — it will disappear," he said. "And from our shores, we — you know, it could get worse before it gets better. It could maybe go away. We'll see what happens. Nobody really knows." Contrary to those predictions, the virus has killed in the meantime over 225,000 people - just in US.
To sum it up, reasonable people observe, think and prepare. When required and possible, they take an action to reverse a bad trend.
Right, facts. Not the ramblings of some random guy on the internet.That's just an insult. Are you rambling?
Indeed. In addition to the increase of human population, the populations of other predators, such as sharks and seals in warmer waters are also increasing. That depletes the fish stocks even more.You do believe in Darwin? Nature balances these things out. Somehow it's managed for billions of years. By the way, a shark is a fish.
That's just an insult. Are you rambling?
You do believe in Darwin? Nature balances these things out. Somehow it's managed for billions of years. By the way, a shark is a fish.
You do believe in Darwin? Nature balances these things out. Somehow it's managed for billions of years. By the way, a shark is a fish.
Darwin has his critics, but by and large he offers a plausible explanation that most people generally go along with. But there are people, notably the creationists, that don't believe in Darwin. They offer an alternate explanation. Different people believe different things. By the way, he didn't say that a shark was a fish. He said that a shark is a predator.Yes, a shark is a predator, but it's also a fish. So we trade a bunch of little fishies for one large fishie. It's like trading off 15o McDonald's hamburgers for one fat human.
Yes, a shark is a predator, but it's also a fish. So we trade a bunch of little fishies for one large fishie. It's like trading off 15o McDonald's hamburgers for one fat human.
I just remembered I definitely didn't eat shark when I was in Iceland a couple of years ago. It looked even worse than the following description from Wikipedia:That's why they're so plentiful.
Hákarl (Icelandic pronunciation: [ˈhauːkʰartl̥]; an abbreviation of kæstur hákarl, referred to as fermented shark in English) is a national dish of Iceland consisting of a Greenland shark or other sleeper shark which has been cured with a particular fermentation process and hung to dry for four to five months.