Luminous Landscape Forum

The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: LesPalenik on July 01, 2019, 08:47:59 pm

Title: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 01, 2019, 08:47:59 pm
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.
 
Quote
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).

https://olympics.nbcsports.com/2019/07/01/sarah-true-ironman-collapse/

Quote
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.

more photos and article about the ice storm:
https://news.yahoo.com/photos-freak-hail-storm-hits-guadalajara-mexico-131844700.html

Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 01, 2019, 09:11:27 pm
... And there are still people who don't accept the climate changes...

Nobody denies that climate changes. It's been changing for billions of years.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 01, 2019, 09:25:45 pm
Quite right! But this time, the changes are caused by man. Actually, by almost 8 million humans.
Not counting 1.5 billion cows, 2 billion pigs, and 19 billion chickens. That's over 60 billion gas producing orifices and who knows how much CO2 and methane.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: langier on July 01, 2019, 10:07:23 pm
The "Record Temperature" near Paris was apparently measured between a highway and a bunch of greenhouses...the "urban heat island" effect used for effect...

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/29/frances-new-hottest-recorded-temperature-ever-is-in-question-guess-where-it-was-measured/

Scrolling down the page, it also may not be a record high despite the anomaly of the siting of the weather station.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 01, 2019, 10:14:53 pm
un record est un record or as French say une record temperature
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 01, 2019, 10:40:12 pm
In the meantime, Miami is enjoying the same balmy weather as every year. No records here. So, where is the “global” part ?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 01, 2019, 10:58:36 pm
Miami is indeed a special place. Let's enjoy it while we can.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on July 01, 2019, 11:52:29 pm
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

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.

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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 02, 2019, 12:02:41 am
The sources of pollution and their consequences don't necessarily align.
In seventies and eighties many lakes in Northern Ontario were seriously acidified and pretty much dead - devoid of any organic life, such as plants or fish. Between 50% and 70% of Canada's acid rain came from the United States, while only 2-10% of America's pollution in this area came from Canada. Fortunately, by now after new protective legislations, most lakes in the Sudbury region have recovered, which is also a proof, that the problems were caused and can be fixed by man.

Quote
"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."

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/acid-rain-the-sort-of-environmental-success-story/44801

Joe, instead of repeating the same stuff over and over, you should read my posts more carefully. As to the nuclear energy, I have mentioned in one of my previous posts that Ontario utilizes mainly nuclear and hydroelectric generation plants, and a small percentage of electricity comes from wind and solar. Quebec, the second most populous province in Canada, produces close to 96% of its electricity through hydropower. Newfoundland and British Columbia use also primarily hydroelectric plants. Coal-fired generation plants are still used to some extent in other Canadian provinces. 
 
I've seen quite a few hail storms, but never even heard of one which deposited 5 feet of ice. Extreme in every way. As to the explanation of the Guadalajara hail storm, I'm not a meteorologist, but have you heard about the Butterfly Effect? A butterfly flapping its wings somewhere over the Pacific Ocean can cause a hurricane in Florida. It may take a very long time, but the connection is real. If the butterfly had not flapped its wings at just the right point in space/time, the hurricane would not have happened.

When it comes to hail storms, it is well known that:

Quote
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.

Recently, I read that the current weather extremes are caused by powerful air currents (stronger than before and also occurring in different patterns) and it's not difficult to add up the two facts above and understand that the new air currents and weather patterns might be causing more dangerous storms - producing also large quantities of hail or water.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: jeremyrh on July 02, 2019, 01:26:36 am
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 ...
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on July 02, 2019, 05:00:07 am
The odd thing is this: almost everybody I speak with in life as against online is complaining about the heat this early in summer - which is pretty high - and of the fact that the past winter has been unusually mild; yes, cold, but compared with earlier winters, mild. (And I know this, not by being obsessed with the thermometer, but by dint of my hands not being as badly affected this winter by Raynaud's as in past years) Rainfall has been low, and this bodes ill for the water supply.

The winters here of the 80s were spectacular displays of lightning and thunder; can't remember the last time we had that kind of sustained display in recent years. I used to get robins in the garden and on the terrace each winter; I haven't seen one in the past two. Ditto lizards: each summer would see them lie in wait on the terrace walls or ceiling. Not seen one there in years, though I have seen one elsewhere on the building. By now, the evening sky would be alive with little bats doing their acrobatic displays; not so far this time around. Of course things have changed during the past few year; you'd have to live in a closed box not to notice.

As you would not to notice that parking these days in this little pair of towns (Pollensa and its Port) is almost impossible, where once there was unlimited space right in front of your destination.

Why do some here look upon big cars or tucks as being valid only in terms of the price of their fuel? What about the shit they pump out into the air? Does it make more sense to drive two tons of crap with just the driver inside, or something that weighs less than half that? As I asked before, where do folks think those escaped gasses go? The bits that separate out and become heavier than air fall back down, but the gasses lighter than air can't, and they stop right where they have the same weight as the much thinner air around them at that altitude, and so on outwards. They can't fall back down and be "treated". They cause the layers that trap heat. And somebody thinks that adding and adding to that, which is what man is doing, makes no difference, that it would happen anyway? What would happen anyway does; but we add a helluva lot to that. And what we add are perhaps the bits that become trapped above our heads. For ever. Those can't be washed back down by rain. They are above it.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on July 02, 2019, 07:55:12 am
I feel I need to apologize for my remarks.  They were a little abrasive here.  I get frustrated with the whole carbon emissions issue and feel nothing is really being done.  Wind and solar is a rabbit whole not slowing emissions and the fact that nuclear is not being given more credence is annoying. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on July 02, 2019, 08:06:24 am
Absolutely, Les. As Chicken Little said, "The sky is falling." I think we should all run for it.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Chairman Bill on July 02, 2019, 08:08:20 am
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>
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on July 02, 2019, 08:17:06 am
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>


Hey, why neglect the gun lobby? Swoon, gulp, the end.

:-)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 02, 2019, 09:09:38 am
Absolutely, Les. As Chicken Little said, "The sky is falling." I think we should all run for it.

Russ, it wasn't the sky, it was just a lot of ice.
In case of sky falling, the big sky chunks will fall just behind the earth edge. However, in case of ice balls, they could hit your house. I sincerely hope they won't.
Where I am, it's improbable that we will see any hail, since the air and water temperatures are unusually cold this summer. Could be caused by those new pesky air currents.
 

 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 02, 2019, 10:45:14 am
Temperatures in Alaska are supposed to set records over the next couple of days. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on July 02, 2019, 10:53:13 am
That'll be nice for Alaska.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 02, 2019, 10:54:32 am
But uncomfortably hot for grizzlies.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on July 02, 2019, 10:57:44 am
Well, it might be uncomfortable for the rapidly multiplying polar bears, but grizzlies also live a lot farther south -- say in Colorado for instance as I remember. They'll be okay. They're probably stretched out on rocks right now going "Ahhhhhhhh....."
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 02, 2019, 11:07:11 am
... more photos and article about the ice storm:
https://news.yahoo.com/photos-freak-hail-storm-hits-guadalajara-mexico-131844700.html

What I am going to say is not related to global warming. Nor I claim a conspiracy or photoshopping. I am genuinely puzzled.

Looking at the photos, I wonder:

1. How is it possible that no windshield or car roof appears damaged? Really small hail? And yet huge chunks of ice on the ground. Smail hail melted to form huge chunks?

2. No ice on the bushes or house roofs

3. No ice further away from the main street. Steep side streets, sloping toward the main street? Don't look that way on the photograph, but possible.

4. Not a single video of the hail actually falling? In a city of 5 million people?

To me, the way it entered the city street, it looks like a mudslide or flash flood from the neighboring hills (except it was ice, not mud or rain). The position of the cars in the middle of the street also suggest something like flash flood. The city is at a 5000-feet altitude, btw, and used to hail storms, just not this freakish.

In any case, freakishly unusual.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 02, 2019, 11:17:29 am
Then again, it isn't so unheard of in Colorado, for instance, though you can clearly see hail damage to cars:

Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on July 02, 2019, 11:21:55 am
Impossible to say. All of my cars in Spain have suffered hail damage but never (thank God) broken glass.

The first shots look like white flooding of something thickly creamy, but the last one shows some residual white on roofs, as well as collapsed, cheap roofing. Now, if the hail happened suddenly, followed by sunshine, small areas would melt more quickly than large; five feet deep makes sense if you think of it as in streets, where roofs have emptied onto them, but that depends on whether or not the place uses flat roofing or pitched.

Odd event. Or more of what Alan would almost certainly define as fake news. Perhaps it is all fake story, and there was a drain blockage at the central laundry. Or nightclub.

:-)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 02, 2019, 11:35:20 am
...  collapsed, cheap roofing. ..flat roofing or pitched...

In places like those, collapsed roofing has been there for a while most likely, and not from snow. Most roofs are flat in the pictures.

It looks like the freakish height of the accumulated melted hail is more a result of the terrain configuration, leading to a concentration in the lower main street, than the sheer amount of hail. Which would make the event less freakish, as the Colorado pictures, where it is more or less a regular occurance, confirm.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on July 02, 2019, 11:41:15 am
Looks like hail to me. Small hail.  We get a lot of hail. Almost weekly in summer months when we get our rainfall. Hail can be really localized.  One street gets blitzed and another nothing. Hail is almost always associated with massive rainfalls. I mean like a cloudburst. That results in hail being washed into concentrated areas once on the ground. I have seen hail as big as golf balls several times in my life. Car windows brake with that type of hail but not the little stuff no matter how thick that falls. It’s very slippery to drive on.

I have built hail men on a few occasions with very heavy hail but I have never seen anything like in these photos.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 02, 2019, 05:42:53 pm
Despite the hail storm in Quadalajara, Mexico,  June 2019 was hottest month ever recorded on Earth.

Quote
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.

https://www.thedailystar.net/world/news/june-was-hottest-month-ever-recorded-earth-eu-satellite-agency-1765669
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 03, 2019, 11:25:48 am
Hold on to your hats, the Flat Earthers will be along in a minute ...

Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 03, 2019, 11:58:02 am
Speaking about Flat Earthers:

Quote
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.”

https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2018/09/07/the-flat-earth-society-weighs-climate-change/pyRLW25ksFUvzsxQ5iDuHO/story.html
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 03, 2019, 01:00:14 pm
Global warming causing yet another fire.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/jim-beam-bourbon-fire-kentucky-warehouse-destroys-45-000-barrels-n1026236

And here I was, hoping to put all that ice from Mexico to a good use ;)

Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 03, 2019, 01:21:55 pm
That's a serious loss, 45,000 barrels of whiskey. They could have it used it as a biofuel instead.
 
Little bit further north, a different crisis hit makers of iceberg vodka. Somebody stole their melted iceberg water.

Quote
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.

But there are still plenty of icebergs around.

https://www.thetelegram.com/news/local/busy-iceberg-season-expected-this-year-in-newfoundland-and-labrador-306152/

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/they-re-everywhere-you-look-iceberg-spotters-flock-to-newfoundland-1.4432043

Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on July 03, 2019, 01:44:32 pm
Thank God it was whiskey and vodka, both horrible spirits.  I'll raise a glass of rum to that! 

Now we just need a good gin fire too. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 03, 2019, 06:09:04 pm
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.

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?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on July 05, 2019, 08:11:51 am
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?

On the charitable thought that you forgot the smiley: local weather patterns are brought about by patterns and changes across the world. You can be as greenly credentialed as you like, but if Mon Oncle Sam continues to hold hands with China and India, everybody is fucked, determinedly responsible virgins or otherwise.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 12, 2019, 07:52:15 am
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on July 12, 2019, 08:03:25 am
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.

On the Louisiana radio station I listen to, they said last night that the storm was still some way off, and moving at about 3mph towards them.

Couple of days ago we had another Sahara rain experience, where it rains brown. This time, it was the worst I have ever seen. The cars outside were monochromatic, just like in a drawing on brown paper.

So yeah, over my almost forty years of seeing such events, it's got a lot more severe now.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: BernardLanguillier on July 12, 2019, 08:28:26 am
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?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 12, 2019, 08:30:00 am
Are you denying the reality of global warming or that man's activity has a dominant effect on it?

No/yes.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 12, 2019, 08:44:19 am
Not so much in Florida, where the average temperature over the last fifty years rose only by about 1 degree (C). However, in northern Canada, the average temperatures rose by over double that rate.
Sometimes, even the small gradual changes cause big events. For example, in 2016 in Yukon, melting glacier opened a new channel and two large lakes and Slims River drained up. That has cause other changes for the natives living in that area.

Quote
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.”

http://projects.thestar.com/climate-change-canada/yukon/
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 12, 2019, 08:47:02 am
Are you denying the reality of global warming or that man's activity has a dominant effect on it?

Cheers,
Bernard

the coverage is spotty and not complete. There's an unfairness in how they report it
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 12, 2019, 08:54:42 am
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on July 12, 2019, 09:07:25 am
No/yes.

+1
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 12, 2019, 09:20:47 am
the coverage is spotty and not complete. There's an unfairness in how they report it

If the little rise in the temperature affects only your A/C bill, I can understand you reasoning.   
However, if two lakes and a river disappear, with all the waterfowl and fish gone, that sounds rather complete to me.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 12, 2019, 10:15:16 am
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.
While true, there is also increase in the range of disease carrying insects and invasive plant species.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on July 12, 2019, 10:37:02 am
Better run for the hills, Alan.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: BernardLanguillier on July 12, 2019, 11:07:50 am
No/yes.

So you think that the current warming is one of those natural cycles that occurred in the past as well?

How do you explain the the rate of warming is much much much faster this time?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on July 12, 2019, 11:10:32 am
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.

I'm looking forward to hearing about the new habitat for the polar bears, not to mention the cold-water fish and other mammals. Obviously enough the tiny existing deserts like the Gobi, the Sahara, the Arabian Peninsula, the Atacama are going to expand; much of the rest of Africa will turn brown, and then, as since it's warmed up, an area approximately twice the size of the United States has become green with trees and grass. That (will) 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.

Have you dug to Australia yet?

Rob
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 12, 2019, 11:20:18 am
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 administration's own reports.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 12, 2019, 11:21:04 am
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 12, 2019, 11:23:14 am
There are morons everywhere.

You mean you have proof that their assessment is incorrect, or what do you mean?

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on July 12, 2019, 11:25:04 am
I think I might rechristen LuLa Alice in Wonderland.

Rob
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 12, 2019, 11:31:14 am
OMG, even your government admits it is human-caused.
You must be in a deep state of denial to not even believe the Trump administration's own reports.

Cheers,
Bart
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. 

Frankly, having retired and moved to New Jersey farm country, I'm disappointed by how many new developments have been builts around here in the last six years.  I enjoy driving around the farms and ranches and seeing horses, cows and other animals.  But the buildings.  It's we're too damn successful.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 12, 2019, 11:42:19 am
You mean you have proof that their assessment is incorrect, or what do you mean?

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?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 12, 2019, 11:51:49 am
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 12, 2019, 11:53:20 am
The "New Energy Economy": An Exercise in Magical Thinking

https://www.manhattan-institute.org/green-energy-revolution-near-impossible?fbclid=IwAR2FpPsBFFmMp7BjwxAn3wqxZ6RpqERKFLkz9lxKn285fbgnxuQbbku88Zg

(Emphasis mine)

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 12, 2019, 11:56:01 am
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 12, 2019, 12:24:52 pm
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?

Besides the fact that that was not based on scientific evidence, and Al Gore is not a scientist either, you are basically saying you don't have proof or even a theory to share, because you don't trust anybody.

How strange, when even an oil company like Shell knew in 1991 what was happening, and made a video documentary about it:
Climate of Concern - Royal Dutch Shell (1991)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VOWi8oVXmo

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 12, 2019, 12:38:05 pm
It looks like this winter we will be still able to enjoy the South Florida beaches. But Miami mayor is worried.

Quote
“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.

Quote
In November 2017, voters approved a $400 Million Miami Forever Bond. Nearly half the funds go toward tackling sea level rise.

Why would they spend unnecessary money on alarmist news?


https://miami.cbslocal.com/2019/05/21/faster-than-predicted-rising-sea-levels-coastal-cities/
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on July 12, 2019, 01:07:39 pm
Yes, I know; those pesky icebergs sink ships! Let's melt them all; you know nothing will happen. The money spent doing that will create jobs and make America Great Again! There will be more money to fund the gun lobby and less to waste on cancer research which we don't do much of now because it's not cost efficient and hey, we're all gonna die some day anyway, right? Look on the positive side!

The holiday industry will thrive, especially the big cruise liner section: instead of going to the cold seas (brrrr!!!!) to watch whales we can all go to Venice Beach instead, or maybe to New New Orleans and fill the place with fresh day-trippers every day! When that bores, there's always the new thrill of the old North Pole route, now free of ice and bustling with Russian yachts, Chinese junks etc. Bring your large digital camera(s) and get the same photos as everyone else you envied does! Count the hairs! Feel the bokeh!

Mr Trump has pioneered a new company and great plan to raise the whole of Miami on stilts! Then see how great the south will be again, and how envious those Europeans will feel as their own waterways lose visitors to the new, shiny, Technicolor Las Vegas-by-the-Sea.  The rigs in the Gulf? What rigs? The last hurricane cleaned them all away, don't you remember? So environmentally friendly, our Gulf.

Wait: is that a little group of people from a photographic website out in a dighy looking for seals and penguins? No worries, lads; we have an indoor reservation for you to visit - you can sail right in through the airlock - and any number of people dressed in the appropriate costumes will clap their hands, waddle, and/or balance colouted balls on the tip of their nose for you; our staff are better than the uncooperative real things in the old documentaries; did you know it once took weeks to get a couple of minutes of movie? Our backgrounds are authentic scenes specially curated from old National Geographic archives, guaranteed better than real. And get this: our 'bergs are color coded to your sensor setting of choice! Wow! What more could a sane man desire?

Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: faberryman on July 12, 2019, 01:12:33 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 12, 2019, 01:14:22 pm
At least you admit it is happening.

But there are still two more who are denying it.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 12, 2019, 01:18:27 pm
Besides the fact that that was not based on scientific evidence, and Al Gore is not a scientist either...

The UN report was based on science. Gore's claim was based on a scientific report. I just don't know what science AOC was smoking for her 12-year prognosis.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: faberryman on July 12, 2019, 01:21:43 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 12, 2019, 01:25:22 pm
And now they say that even the air traffic will be affected by rising emissions.

Quote
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.""

https://www.straight.com/life/1265566/clear-air-turbulence-linked-past-climate-change-injures-35-people-air-canada-flight
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 12, 2019, 01:32:30 pm
"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!
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 12, 2019, 01:33:31 pm
I believe she said she was joking...

If you accept that everything she says is a joke, then I agree with you.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: faberryman on July 12, 2019, 01:36:49 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 12, 2019, 01:39:11 pm
"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!

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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on July 12, 2019, 01:39:46 pm
You mean you have proof that their assessment is incorrect, or what do you mean?

Cheers,
Bart

That's not the question Bart. Nobody has to "prove" a negative. It's up to the "assessors" to prove their "assessment." They're guessing. I'm guessing. I'd bet, based on the history of these things, that my guess is right and theirs is wrong.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on July 12, 2019, 01:40:43 pm
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.

 8) ;D
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 12, 2019, 01:43:29 pm
As a matter of fact, on my last flight to Miami, I also experienced a bad case of air-turbulence...

You sure it wasn't the pre-flight visit to a Taco Bell?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 12, 2019, 01:50:41 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 12, 2019, 01:51:20 pm
You sure it wasn't the pre-flight visit to a Taco Bell?
Nah, I'm sticking to clean, good quality food.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 14, 2019, 04:43:12 am
To survive in a wetter world, farmers in Bangladesh are adapting to climate change, and are switching from raising chickens to ducks.

Quote
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.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/07/bangladesh-climate-change-floods-ducks/593581/
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on July 14, 2019, 08:40:05 am
This, from two brief showers brough to Mallorca by southern winds bearing Sahara dust. I have experienced it every year, but never quite as strongly.

The car had just been washed two days before.

Direct from the iPad camera:

Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 14, 2019, 09:26:11 am
That’s why my previous car was golden metallic. Not gaudy golden, I think the official name was “desert sand mica.” Had to wash it every... year. My daughter likes black, and it seems it needs washing every... day.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 14, 2019, 09:30:45 am
... farmers in Bangladesh are adapting to climate change...

So much smarter, those farmers, than the loonie left who would rather eliminate humanity to save the planet than adapt.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Eric Myrvaagnes on July 14, 2019, 09:31:38 am
My white Prius needs washing every day.

But it gets washed about once a year.   :(
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 14, 2019, 09:46:38 am
We have paved roads here, so my blue van doesn't need washing at all.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 14, 2019, 10:35:02 am
To survive in a wetter world, farmers in Bangladesh are adapting to climate change, and are switching from raising chickens to ducks.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/07/bangladesh-climate-change-floods-ducks/593581/
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on July 14, 2019, 10:43:14 am
My white Prius needs washing every day.

But it gets washed about once a year.   :(

It's a Zen thing.

;-)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on July 14, 2019, 10:45:30 am
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.

Rob
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 14, 2019, 11:37:14 am
No; they become extinct.

Rob
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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on July 14, 2019, 02:38:16 pm
No; they become extinct.

Some do, some don't. Look at the history of the peppered moth.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Frans Waterlander on July 14, 2019, 03:36:02 pm
No; they become extinct.

Rob

The polar bears survived the Medieval Warm Period, 900-1300 AD, which was warmer than today.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 14, 2019, 04:20:43 pm
The polar bears survived the Medieval Warm Period, 900-1300 AD, which was warmer than today.

(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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on July 14, 2019, 05:16:26 pm
Some do, some don't. Look at the history of the peppered moth.

Jeremy


Jeremy, tell me you are joking. It's 23:16 as I type!

Rob
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on July 14, 2019, 05:18:10 pm
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.


Yes, we agree: there will be inconveniences. I love understatement.

Rob
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 14, 2019, 05:24:43 pm

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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on July 14, 2019, 05:35:12 pm
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.


That's some coin you've got there: so far, it has revealed several sides to itself and the week has just begun!

Go, daddy go!

:-)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on July 14, 2019, 07:57:19 pm
(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

You need to find a cave to move into, Bart. Caves are cooler.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on July 14, 2019, 09:11:09 pm
(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 what the different colors represent? 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 14, 2019, 09:23:59 pm
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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 14, 2019, 09:26:45 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on July 14, 2019, 09:37:49 pm
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

Thanks!  It appears like those who posted it don't even supply the key though, or at least post it with the graph. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 14, 2019, 10:00:58 pm
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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 14, 2019, 10:58:29 pm
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.

The primary beneficiary of warmer weather will be Iceland. All tourists complaining of bitterly cold winds and heavy snowfalls on the roads there can breath out now. Just imagine how many more photographers will come if they'll promise milder weather and more passable roads.
 
https://icelandmag.is/article/winter-2016-17-was-fourth-warmest-winter-record

When it comes to the warming trend and Canadian winters, 2 degrees difference won't cut it, we might just get the NJ climate. Still too cold for swimming in Lake Superior or Atlantic ocean, and no fresh mangoes as in Florida.

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.

It seems that because of wet spring and now hot summer we have more mosquitos this year and also the ticks have started to migrate from south, but so far no dangerous creatures and no stinking seaweeds in the lakes. A week ago, I took my canoe to a scenic river north of Toronto, and while on the water and in the sun the paddle and swim were very enjoyable, upon the return to the take-out spot and while strapping the canoe on the car, the copious and voracious mosquitos spoiled all the fun from an otherwise fine outing.   

Quote
“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.”

https://globalnews.ca/news/5473321/regina-mosquito-population-spike/

So back to your opening comment, too much of warmth is sometimes not so good.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on July 15, 2019, 04:33:41 am
There  was a documentary recently on tv about the Tundra in  Russia. Apparently, vast craters are opening up as the deep permafrost melts and the suface collapses downwards.

As Russ suggests, nice to be old enough not to see the worst of it when it cometh. But the kids, the kids...

;-)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 15, 2019, 06:13:16 am
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.


Quote
So back to your opening comment, too much of warmth is sometimes not so good.

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.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on July 15, 2019, 06:47:21 am
And irony of ironies, they look to space travel as a holy grail. The lemmings are not all in the British Isles.

Rob
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 15, 2019, 07:47:40 am
  • 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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 15, 2019, 08:04:58 am
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.

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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 15, 2019, 09:11:11 am
  • 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.
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.

Cheers,
Bart
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. 


In any case, why don;t we address climate change fro the standpoint of what we can to about the effects. It doesn;t seem like we're going to change it.  It's like complaining about the weather. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on July 15, 2019, 09:16:36 am
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

Obviously we all should go back to hunting and gathering. That would eliminate the supposed cause of the problem.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 15, 2019, 09:16:44 am
  • 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]
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.

https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Which-Kills-More-People-Extreme-Heat-or-Extreme-Cold (https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Which-Kills-More-People-Extreme-Heat-or-Extreme-Cold)[/list]
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 15, 2019, 09:17:29 am
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? 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 15, 2019, 10:11:29 am
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. 

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.

Quote
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.

https://www.citylab.com/environment/2019/06/extreme-heat-wave-data-deaths-health-risks-climate-change/590941/
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on July 15, 2019, 10:48:16 am
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

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. 

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/brick.  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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 15, 2019, 10:51:34 am
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/)

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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 15, 2019, 10:56:15 am
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.

Quote
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

Quote
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.

Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 15, 2019, 11:07:00 am
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. 

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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on July 15, 2019, 11:13:14 am
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.

The saving grace with my utility bills is that my house is a connect townhouse (row house) in the middle of the block.  So I only loose energy through the two 16 foot wide front and rear walls, and my roof, which is not insulated (plus my parti-walls are plaster directly on brick, giving me a few more inches of width).  If I could insulate my roof, I would, but I don't feel like taking on a $10K roofing project right now. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 15, 2019, 11:18:11 am
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. 

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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 15, 2019, 11:18:41 am
  • 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]
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.

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?  :)
[/list]
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 15, 2019, 11:23:45 am
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. 

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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 15, 2019, 11:26:35 am
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.

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.

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.  :)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 15, 2019, 11:28:01 am
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.

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?  :)
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.

I've been to Florida a number of times and would never want to live there.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 15, 2019, 11:36:01 am
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.

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.  :)
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.

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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 15, 2019, 11:36:21 am
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.

I don't have number of freezing deaths, but based on the newspaper reports, I would estimate it at several dozens per year (for the whole of Canada).
Actually, we get here more death cases because of drowning than from freeze. There were 423 unintentional water-related fatalities in Canadian waters in 2015, a good part of them drunken boaters or daredevils on skidoos on thin ice.
 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 15, 2019, 11:42:11 am
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. 

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.
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. 


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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 15, 2019, 11:45:44 am
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.

I've been to Florida a number of times and would never want to live there.
Never been to San Diego.  But my cousin lived there and loved it.  The weather is great I understand. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 15, 2019, 11:51:02 am
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.

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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on July 15, 2019, 12:21:59 pm
Mallorca seems to be an island where building is associated with the holiday dream. My place, as with pretty much everything except old stone buildings, consists of a single thickness of hollow cement bricks or blocks, or whatever the correct term for them is. In winter the heating passes straight through and keeps the gardens happy and me cold. And the bills astronomical. In summer, the heat comes in unless you balance that out with cunning use of wooden shutters and glass windows, where your objective is to encourage the air from the shaded side of the building to flow inwards and the heated side to embrace it outside. Do that at night and you get mosquitoes.

I have thought of double glazing, but as I have no wall insulation...

I have air con in the office from when, in the 80s, it doubled as a now-and-then darkroom. I never use it; I rather become acclimatised. The same holds in the car, where unless on the motorway, I keep the driver's door widow down. Air con may be essential in some climes, but Mallorca ain't it. Yet, everybody gets one unit at least.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on July 15, 2019, 12:24:30 pm
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.

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.

No, I love yachts, the bigger the better; it's not the boats nor the seas.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: mbaginy on July 15, 2019, 12:31:18 pm
    ...The last bad heat wave in Europe (ten years ago???) saw over 100 deaths in Paris IIRC.
The summer heat wave of 2003 was made responsible for over 70,000 fatalities in Europe.

Roughly four weeks of temps in the high 30s and some days over 40.  Nights offered no cooling.  I recall working from my home office dressed only in swimming trunks.  Luckily I didn’t have any skype meetings, just phone calls.  Was called to a meeting at Volkswagen in Wolfsburg.  They were displeased with details of a project and demanded my attendance.  Elevators were inop so I climbed the four or five stories to the meetings room.  Thought I would faint.  No greetings, no refreshments, just 20 minutes of verbal attacks.  Then I was dismissed and delighted to return to my car and a (very warm) bottle of water. The five-hour return was a pleasure thanks to aircon.[/list]
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 15, 2019, 02:59:16 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 15, 2019, 02:59:47 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 15, 2019, 03:46:26 pm
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.

No, I love yachts, the bigger the better; it's not the boats nor the seas.
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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 15, 2019, 03:50:03 pm
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.

I added a combination CO and natural gas sensor in my laundry room adjacent to the hot water heater.  THe three other ceiling smoke detectors in the rest of the house also monitors for CO. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Chris Kern on July 15, 2019, 03:57:19 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 15, 2019, 04:08:14 pm
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.

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?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 15, 2019, 04:13:35 pm
Interesting article on ventilation codes for homes in the US.  Of course the issue is trading off a tighter house that saves energy vs. the need to breathe better air, air quality, and safety concerns regarding gases that might choke you to death.
https://www.energyvanguard.com/blog/2018-building-code-makes-change-in-ventilation
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 15, 2019, 04:32:39 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 15, 2019, 04:51:09 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 15, 2019, 04:59:09 pm
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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 15, 2019, 05:59:27 pm
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.

I had lunch with a former colleague today whose house was badly damaged by a neighbor's oak tree that fell on the back half.  The neighbor was incredibly irresponsible as they were told on several occasions over five years that the tree was damaged and would fall.  Their neighbor's insurance company ended up on the hook for the damage.  My friends have to rebuild the back half of the home with a new foundation.  Front half is OK according to the engineers though the foundation has to be stabilized when they start building.  Your correct about the code compliance.  Since this is a major renovation they will have to do a lot more than if it was a simple room addition.  they will have been out of their home probably for almost 18 months depending on the speed of construction which won't start until next month.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 15, 2019, 06:02:38 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on July 15, 2019, 06:17:18 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 15, 2019, 06:31:23 pm

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.

Communal dining  is passe if you don;t want it.  All the cruise lines offer "open dining".  If you eat in the main dining room, you go when you want and can eat by yourself.  No more dress codes.  If you rather not deal with a waiter at all, they have smorgasbord type dining where you pick the food out and go find a table to sit at by yourself pondering if your ship will be the next one to capsize.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 15, 2019, 07:52:07 pm
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 don't think, it's the cost. I have family and friends in Germany, they are simply not used to AC. Maybe the young generation will expect and demand it, especially if the summer temperatures keep climbing, but the baby boomers lived all their lives without it, so why to switch now?
 
This summer, I have used AC in my house just north of Toronto only on two days. Fortunately, most nights were cooler, so the house cooled down overnight and in the morning, and then I closed the windows and drove for the afternoon to a nearby lake.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 15, 2019, 08:10:48 pm
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.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 15, 2019, 08:34:25 pm
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.

Cheers,
Bart
Why should I believe your claim.   You've shown no evidence.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 15, 2019, 10:18:47 pm
Another plague encouraged by hot weather - Japanese Beetles.
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 indecent activities. 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.

(https://www.gardeners.com/on/demandware.static/-/Library-Sites-SharedLibrary/default/dw96c30ca1/Articles/Gardening/Hero_Thumbnail/5163-japanese-beetle.jpg)

Quote
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.
 

http://www.millionplants.com/advice/our-thoughts-and-advice-on-japanese-beetles/
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 15, 2019, 10:33:03 pm
Another plague encouraged by hot weather - Japanese Beetles.
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? 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 15, 2019, 10:48:40 pm
  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?

They are more rambunctious and more agile during the day, consequently more capable of a fly-away escape. Also normally, I hate to interfere with couples in intimate moments.
From now on, I'll get up earlier and surprise them in the morning while they are still sluggish. 

Most probably, they are still in NYC, but unless you look for them or see the skeletonized leaves you wouldn't notice them. By now, they seem to be in every state and province. Apparently, they eat over 300 different plants and even lawns.

Quote
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.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6429693/

https://journalstar.com/lifestyles/home-and-garden/sarah-browning-japanese-beetles-taking-toll-on-plants/article_fdabae8e-e908-5c88-bc41-7c6d6f5d31f3.html
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: degrub on July 15, 2019, 10:53:08 pm
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/
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 15, 2019, 11:01:31 pm
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/

Thanks for the tip, I'll try it this year. Apparently, one nematode package contains a whopping 10 million fighters.
However, the problem is that the Japanese bugs are quite competent fliers and come to visit from the neighbouring backyards.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on July 16, 2019, 07:49:41 am
We used to have a lot of Japanese Beetles but I've not seen much in the way of an infestation in the last five years.  Perhaps they don't like anything in our yard.  the other pest that has disappeared is the Gypsy Moth that used to infest oak trees.  It's been gone for over ten years in our area despite the prevalence of the host tree.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on July 16, 2019, 09:48:58 am
Rain?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaH4TUFjc_M
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 17, 2019, 11:18:53 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on July 18, 2019, 04:18:39 am
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.


He's an activist; just another misguided soul who drank the C-C kool-aid and fell into step with the Red Chinese plot to destabilize the West!

(The above is supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, just in case it doesn't travel well in this heat.)

In Singapore our model crumbled off a rock and I caught her just in time to save the shoot - never mind her; in Key West my wife collapsed without warning: out. In both cases I suggest it was the oppressive heat married to the high humidity.

The thing is, it doesn't take a huge change to push the normal conditions into the unbearable. That's the trouble: people think that only twenty degrees or something of change will affect life; not so. Food sources fare no better; and without water not at all.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 18, 2019, 06:03:12 pm
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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 18, 2019, 06:03:40 pm
Here's the link.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/18/reuters-america-new-york-awards-offshore-wind-contracts-to-equinor-orsted.html
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 20, 2019, 10:30:53 pm
US farmers now face extreme heat wave after floods and trade war.

Quote
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.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/19/extreme-heat-wave-hits-us-farmers-already-suffering-from-flooding.html
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on July 21, 2019, 04:08:26 am
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.


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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 21, 2019, 07:27:38 am
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

I don't envy the farming community. The above article, of course, talks about Weather and not about Climate. However, there is a clear pattern emerging that the weather extremes are becoming more frequent, which is in line with Climate change.

Last month of June, was in my country the warmest June since official systematic recording started in 1901. Coming week we are likely to have another heatwave. The lack of rain, last year and this year so far, already is causing failed crop production (and soil salination near the coast), and it increases the chance of wildfires. Exotic insects bring new (tropical) diseases to our Latitudes. All that already causes human and economic hardship, hurts the economy more than it would have cost to prevent it, and nature has a hard time to adapt fast enough.

The above article also illustrates the incomprehensible stupidity of those who say that they don't mind a few degrees warmer winter weather. Those few degrees are Global, and Average. They are constructed from higher highs and lower lows, with the extremes becoming more extreme. Food production is at stake, and human health is under pressure.

And this is only the beginning.

There are some promising attempts to get a grip on the situation, but it will take an increasing amount of effort the longer we wait. We can only hope we do not cross irreversible tipping points.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 21, 2019, 08:58:05 am
And this is only the beginning.


Last two days we had in Toronto Humidex up to 44C. It was too hot to go to the lake! Paddling a canoe is no fun at those temperatures. Also no fun for fish, since warm water has a low capacity for holding oxygen.
The hot and humid weather, caused by a so-called “heat dome,” stretched across southern and northern Ontario, southern Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

Quote
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.”

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/humidex-tops-44-c-as-eastern-canada-swelters-under-heat-dome-1.4516713
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 21, 2019, 10:03:50 am
This is the international (NOAA) table that our Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute uses for 'Heat Index'
(https://cdn.knmi.nl/system/data_center_discover_blocks/image1s/000/000/315/large/heatindex.png?1502456661)

Cheers,
Bart

P.S. Here's more info on "Humid heat waves at different warming levels":
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-07536-7
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 21, 2019, 10:08:35 am

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.

By comparison, the US spends $3.5 trillion totally on all medical costs.  So the $8 trillion for wind generation would pay for all medical care for over two years. 

The Federal government will have a trillion dollar deficit this year.  NYS long term liabilities (pensions, etc.) are over $250 billion.  And NYS is a rich state compared to most states throughout the country which are in worse shape.    You don;t live here so you're not familiar with just how broke the states and federal government are.  The fed owes over $20 trillion dollars.  It's already paying something like $500 billion on interest just to finance our debt.  That's money that's just getting pissed away.

Bankrupting the country does not help future generations.  They will be the ones absorbing all the additional debt being held by the Chinese and others.  So on the hope you're going to change the climate, we should bankrupt the economy?  That's nuts. 


Here's an article on NYS electric issues.  We're going to shutdown an existing nuclear plant and replace it with fossil fuels.  Another Gov Cuomo plan.  That's also nuts. Also, read how dangerous from a power failure offshore wind is compared to on-land fossil or nuclear.  So we should expect more blackouts.  And none of the solar or wind will replace conventional because there aren't enough batteries to store power for use at night or when the wind stops. 

 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 21, 2019, 10:11:33 am
Here's th link to the article mentioned in my last post regarding NY electricity.
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/new-york-prepare-for-more-green-blackouts-nuclear-solar-wind
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 21, 2019, 10:34:36 am
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.

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.


Quote
Look at Germany.  40% of its electric are from renewables.  Yet, their costs are 2 1/2 times Americas per KWH.

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.

Quote
Also, their CO2 production has hardly changed in ten years.   So what have they accomplished?  Nothing.

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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 21, 2019, 11:06:44 am
Quote
Soon there will be Carbon taxing on international trade, and the laggards will pay dearly.

Bart, do you mean Christine Lagarde?  ;)




Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 21, 2019, 11:19:04 am
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

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/)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 21, 2019, 11:20:51 am
Bart, do you mean Christine Lagarde?  ;)

LOL, who knows what she will do when she becomes the new President of the European Central Bank, to replace Mario Draghi ...

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: faberryman on July 21, 2019, 11:22:16 am
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 21, 2019, 11:22:39 am
LOL, who knows what she will do when she becomes the new President of the European Central Bank, to replace Mario Draghi ...

Cheers,
Bart
Trump should warm up to her easier than Dragi.  ;)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 21, 2019, 11:24:05 am
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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 21, 2019, 11:28:42 am
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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 21, 2019, 11:43:11 am
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.

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. 

Quote
Germany's costs are higher than other European countries, not only the USA.

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.

Quote
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.
 

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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on July 21, 2019, 11:44:31 am
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?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 21, 2019, 11:44:36 am
And American consumers would pay the price at the checkout counter.

Exactly. It will become cheaper to reduce emissions, to begin with.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 21, 2019, 11:52:14 am
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?

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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: faberryman on July 21, 2019, 11:54:47 am
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"?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on July 21, 2019, 12:08:25 pm
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/)


You're kidding, right?

Germans make the most money in Europe! I wouldn't be at all surprised if they were at the top or very near the top of world earners.  Best economy on the continent. Not sure about Switzerland and Luxembourg in this context, though: they are banking nations, so who knows how they calculate per capitas.

Rob
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on July 21, 2019, 12:20:28 pm
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

Actually, we don’t have to wait. We already have a straightforward method of recycling spent nuclear fuel into mixed oxide which is usable again in a reactor. The plug in the pipe is political. There’s great fear about nuclear power because of things like Three Mile Island, where no contamination escaped, the Fukushima disaster, caused by an earthquake and tsunami where according to the WHO the amount of radiation exposure to workers in the plant is unlikely to cause problems, and finally Chernobyl, a real catastrophe. The answers to these problems are: (1) build containment structures like the ones at Three Mile Island, (2) don’t build nuclear plants within reach of a tsunami, and (3) don’t let Russians build nuclear  plants.

I’m glad to hear that you’re good with nuclear. I hope we can transition to nuclear power before we’ve killed all the world’s birds with windmills and solar.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 21, 2019, 02:43:52 pm
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. 

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
  $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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 21, 2019, 03:48:26 pm
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. 

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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: faberryman on July 21, 2019, 04:16:56 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: bassman51 on July 21, 2019, 04:38:42 pm
  $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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on July 21, 2019, 05:04:14 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 21, 2019, 05:46:48 pm
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 agree.  Knowing all the facts is important to making good decisions.  That's what I've been arguing here for two years. Unfortunately, the press and politicians and green industry corporations have not provided both sides - the good as well as the bad.  You'll see that one poor polar bear starving over and over.  But you won;t see nature programs showing the eagles killed by the wind turbines.  They'll tell you about all the energy savings from green.  But you won't see the cost to society in other areas from the shifting of limited resources from cancer research to green energy rebates. 

In order to make smart decisions for the future, the public should have all the data.  Unfortunately, it's been cherry picked.  The public senses that too.  They know when someone has their hand in their pockets.  So a lot of the public refutes the "proof" because it starts looking like a setup.  People know when they're getting hoodwinked.   
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 21, 2019, 05:53:31 pm

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.

"I'll give you my car when you take it from my cold, dead hands" 

I agree about the sex.  Nothing is going to change with the climate until the population declines about 50%.   But how that might happen is horrendous thinking about it.   In fact, as more and more Chinese become middle class, it's going to get worse and worse.  Europe isn;t so bad.  The population is declining there in many areas.  But as it gets hotter, everyone will want air conditioning like in America.  After all, Americans are so cool.   8)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 21, 2019, 09:15:17 pm
Americans are so cool.

And First Lady is hot.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: HSakols on July 21, 2019, 09:33:13 pm
Thanks Les. So how many of you would support Trump if admitted to being a racist?  I'll be the first to admit that my lively hood depends on capitalism and making some sacrifices of delayed gratification, but how can anyone accept Trump's racist rhetoric? Funny, both of my wife's parents were immigrants and have made positive contributions to our country but they are white.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 21, 2019, 09:41:56 pm
And First Lady is hot.
She's so hot, she's cool.   :P
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on July 22, 2019, 03:45:32 am
She's so hot, she's cool.   :P

I think she has become - mentally - flattened.

She seemed suitably impressed with her rôle at first, but now looks more and more as if she wishes she were somewhere else. Who can blame her?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 24, 2019, 05:28:39 pm
A new study reinforces the evidence that human actions are driving rapid changes to the climate of the whole planet. Global warming is happening on the 98% of the Earth surface.

Quote
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.

https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/global-warming-earth-history-heatwave-study-climate-deniers-a9019391.html

Quote
“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.”
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 24, 2019, 06:31:57 pm
Well, I thought we had another 12 years.  But it seems we all have only 18 months before it's over.  The changing climate is going to do us all in.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48964736

Climate expert Prince Charles concurs so we know it must be true. Now he'll never become King.   No wonder he's so upset.
https://www.smart-energy.com/industry-sectors/business-finance-regulation/next-18-months-will-decide-climate-change-success-prince-charles/
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 24, 2019, 09:07:46 pm
Well, I thought we had another 12 years. 


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:

Quote
Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands have recorded their highest ever temperatures, in a heatwave searing Western Europe.
  • 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.
The new German record was still to be confirmed, it said, warning that it could get even hotter on Thursday.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49100271
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 24, 2019, 11:18:38 pm

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.  :)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 25, 2019, 12:12:32 am
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.  :)

As to the facts, there are widely available - even in the link which I posted.
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.

Quote
“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.

https://time.com/5601169/donald-trump-prince-charles-climate-change/
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 25, 2019, 06:45:00 am
As to the facts, there are widely available - even in the link which I posted.
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/)

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. :)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 25, 2019, 12:44:33 pm
The Met Office in UK has confirmed that the 36.9C temperature recorded at Heathrow Airport earlier is the new record temperature for July. Among other problems, this is also affecting the transportation.

Paris has beaten its all-time heat record, hitting 40.6 C amid a heat wave breaking barriers across Europe. Authorities say the temperature is still rising. It’s one of several records set in this week’s heat wave, the second wave baking the continent this summer. France saw its hottest-ever day on record last month, when a southern town reached 46C.

Quote
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.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/live/2019/jul/25/heatwave-uk-weather-set-to-break-records-as-europes-cities-await-hottest-day-live?page=with:block-5d39a5de8f08cf92bb776cf1#block-5d39a5de8f08cf92bb776cf1
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 25, 2019, 12:54:50 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on July 25, 2019, 01:56:17 pm
You don't want to confuse folks with facts, Slobodan. It doesn't inform them; it just makes them angry because you're puncturing their bubble.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 25, 2019, 02:01:00 pm
I just added flood insurance to my home insurance. You guys convinced me.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Ivo_B on July 25, 2019, 02:07:33 pm

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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 25, 2019, 02:28:57 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 25, 2019, 02:29:57 pm
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.

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). But then, these local weather extremes are, well, local and weather. Climate change, as has been explained many times already, is the long (11, 20 or 30 years) term trend.

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.

Quote
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.

Since you don't provide a source, and rather than debunking each point for the umpteenth time, let's debunk the 10 most common ones in one go:
https://youtu.be/FBF6F4Bi6Sg?t=1

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 25, 2019, 02:37:14 pm
... Climate change, as has been explained many times already, is the long (11, 20 or 30 years) term trend...

11 years!? Even 30!? Seriously!? That’s climate change???

You guys are getting more and more laughable. Coincides with rising temperatures?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Ivo_B on July 25, 2019, 03:07:45 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 25, 2019, 03:19:07 pm
If fish could talk they would tell you about the plastic mess in the oceans, Alan.

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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Ivo_B on July 25, 2019, 03:19:59 pm
11 years!? Even 30!? Seriously!? That’s climate change???

You guys are getting more and more laughable. Coincides with rising temperatures?

A guide in the Tatra explained the canyon we looked at. 9000 Years ago (when all was see in that area!) a giant glacier of 350 m height broke off and found his way to the see.
Doesn’t this sound familiar?
It is not an uncommon mistake of science to narrow everything down to the world of what science already can explain.

Question for the scientists among us. Is earth not warming up since Pinedale glaciation?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Ivo_B on July 25, 2019, 03:22:34 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: faberryman on July 25, 2019, 03:31:36 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Ivo_B on July 25, 2019, 03:32:58 pm
I doubt many polar bears are going to swim from the arctic to the antarctic to feed on penguins.

Ha! Fake news, Faberyman!! 🥴
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 25, 2019, 03:42:39 pm
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.  :)

OK more seals and sea lions.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 25, 2019, 03:46:39 pm
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.

Why don;t you make that link?  Just like the suspension of hunting seals has expanded their population and the subsequent population of white sharks that feed on them, more fish expands the population of animals that feed on fish.  So more seals helps polar bears to survive.  Also white sharks. That's how nature works.  Global warming has cause the greening of the earth to the tune of twice the area of the United States.  Think of all the species expansion that has occured.  Of course, the climate change proponents won't tell you about the species that expand, only those that decrease.  They cherry pick bad news only to fool the public.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 25, 2019, 03:52:01 pm
... Since you don't provide a source...

I thought you are current with the latest news? Or you just notice those confirming your bias?

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"


Quote
...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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 25, 2019, 03:59:03 pm
I thought you are current with the latest news? Or you just notice those confirming your bias?

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"


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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 25, 2019, 04:56:22 pm
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.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 25, 2019, 05:05:07 pm
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.

Trend smoothing is one thing. Claiming that 11 years represent "climate" vs. "weather" is quite another.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 25, 2019, 07:31:21 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 25, 2019, 07:37:55 pm
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.

Never mind parkas, but maybe also the forks and knives.

Quote
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.

Could be due to climate change or cruise tourists.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/penguin-populations-shrinking-antarctica

Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 25, 2019, 07:52:54 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 25, 2019, 08:05:50 pm
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



I was going to say photograph penguins.  But I thought I'd wake everyone up by saying we'd eat them.  Anyway, my wife is a part-vegetarian and would only eat the fish they're eating, but stays away from eating birds, fork or no fork. :)

Speaking of penguin population, they discovered 1 1/2 million  of them that they didn;t know even existed.  They were hidden for almost three thousand years.  Of course, the scientists claim that climate change has even decreased this population by 10-20%.  How do they know?  Seems like everything gets blamed on climate change.  MAybe it's just man eating too many of the same fish penguins depends on.  What I wonder about is why does the tropics where it is warmest have the most diverse and populated species in the world?  The colder climes get, the less diverse and less populated.  As the earth warms, it actually will be better for creatures.  Even man has done better in warmer climates as agriculture provides more food when it's warmer.  Mini-ice ages decrease human populations as well as other species. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 25, 2019, 08:06:31 pm
Trend smoothing is one thing. Claiming that 11 years represent "climate" vs. "weather" is quite another.

As I said, "Climate change, as has been explained many times already, is the long (11, 20 or 30 years) term trend."

Apparently, I also had to explain (in at least one simple way of doing it) how a trend is calculated.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 25, 2019, 08:07:12 pm
Here's the link for the penguins million.
https://www.livescience.com/64282-hidden-adelie-penguin-supercolony.html (https://www.livescience.com/64282-hidden-adelie-penguin-supercolony.html)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: faberryman on July 25, 2019, 08:16:10 pm
Here's the link for the penguins million.
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.

Because the Danger Islands are almost always surrounded by sea ice, they are more protected from krill fishing and other human interventions than other areas of the continent, Lynch said. But even so, the best working hypothesis is that the population decline there is probably also due to climate change."
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 25, 2019, 08:32:51 pm
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."

I acknowledged the 10-20% decline in my post #214.  Apparently you didn't read it.  What I don't necessarily agree with that it's due to climate change.  They made an assumption that their belief of a decline on the mainland due to climate change also applies to the island where these penguins live.  They haven't studied the reason for the decline on the island. They only jumped to a conclusion, not a scientific method. 

The other issue is, that over time, population groups move and change in size as the climate changes.  This happens with all species.  It takes time for things to settle down again.  But over the long haul, there no deleterious effect to the species itself.  Species population expand and contract all the time due to all kinds of changes in the environment.  So what? It's normal.  The penguins could rebound elsewhere where the climate has now become more favorable to them.  But we're only taking a snapshot in time and not seeing the whole evolution playing out.  Of course, in extreme cases, species go extinct or evolve.  Brown bears become polar bears and might go back to being brown bears again and feed on warmer land.   But that's been going to for billions of years.  Again, so what?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 25, 2019, 08:41:19 pm
Impact of climate change on man through time.  Civilizations have come and gone because of climate changes.  And these changes occur naturally without man's interference.  Arguing that somehow we have to maintain climates as they were one or two hundred years ago before fossil fuels were used, is an impossible goal. Better we analyze what the changes are to be expected. Then use resources efficiently to compensate for those changes. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_impacts_of_climate_change
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Ray on July 25, 2019, 10:44:55 pm
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.

Don't you notice a contradiction in your above statements, Bart? You claim temperature records before the mid 1800's are not as scientifically accurate as current temperatures records, then go on to claim that the current rate of temperature rise is unprecedented.

I think what you should have written is, "It is thought, by those who believe in the AGW hypothesis, that the current rate of warming is unprecedented, but this cannot be confirmed with any confidence because of the lack of sufficiently accurate temperature records of the past."

Now that would have made more sense to those of us who are rational and unbiased.  ;)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 25, 2019, 10:50:41 pm
It's nice to see you back Ray with your insight of the climate issues.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Ray on July 26, 2019, 12:18:16 am
It's nice to see you back Ray with your insight of the climate issues.

Thanks, Alan. I've never denied that climate is always changing and that human activities in general quite likely have at least some effect on the current change in climate.

The problem is, it's impossible to accurately quantify the proportion of the current warming that is natural, the proportion which is caused by massive deforestation for agricultural purposes, the proportion which is due to land-clearing for mining purposes, urbanisation and the construction of roads and cities, and the proportion which is due to minuscule increases in atmospheric CO2 due to the burning of fossil fuels.

However, such uncertainty does not lend itself to political action.
The late Professor Stephen Schneider, who was Professor of Environmental Biology and Global Change at Stanford University, explained this problem of uncertainty and its solution quite clearly in the following quote, which I believe is the full quote.

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts.

On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change.

To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.

This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."


Now, there's no harm in scientists hoping that they can be both honest and effective, but when they cease to be honest for any reason, they are ceasing to be scientific. Science is the pursuit of truth.


Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 26, 2019, 12:25:48 am
... I've never denied that climate is always changing...

Of course it does... every 11 years.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Ivo_B on July 26, 2019, 04:51:06 am
Good article in the local Flemish newspaper.

In short: there is no hard to prove one to one relation between climate change and human impact such as pollution, greenhouse gasses , etc. But, there is an influence on how the weather is impacted by the climate due to pe high Greenhouse gasses.

...
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Ray on July 26, 2019, 05:44:14 am
Of course it does... every 11 years.

Since climate is an average of weather events, we would need very accurate, numerous and wide-spread monitoring devices to confidently detect any slight change in climate during short periods of time on a global scale, but that doesn't mean the climate is not slowly changing from year to year. Something as complex and chaotic as the climate cannot possibly remain static.

That the average global temperature is claimed to have increased by approximately 1 degree Centigrade during the past 170 years does not sound alarming to me, especially considering that this figure is unlikely to be accurate due to the lack of sufficient measuring devices in the past, globally.

That most of this warming is claimed to have occurred since the 1950's, when I was a young kid at school, also doesn't seem alarming. One of the reasons I decided to emigrate to Australia is because I didn't like the bloody cold weather in the UK.  ;D

I'm currently in Thailand because I find the winter in semi-tropical Brisbane, Australia, is uncomfortably cold, and decided to holiday in a warmer climate. I recall in June this year, in Brisbane one day, watching the world weather report on TV. The forecast for the following day was a maximum of 20 degree C  in Brisbane, and a maximum of 20 degrees C in London. What a coincidence I thought. In London it's summer time, and in Brisbane it's winter time.

I'm sure glad I'm not in the UK, I felt. A rise in average temperature of just 0.8 degrees since the 1950's would not have been enough for me, had I remained n the UK.  ;D
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 26, 2019, 06:22:20 am
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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 26, 2019, 08:05:34 am
Does the Gulf Stream have anything to do with the heat wave in Europe?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 26, 2019, 08:16:03 am
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

Yes, 2 records in 2 days.

BTW, the official maximum temperature in the Netherlands was corrected to 40.7 °C (still a record) after an hour, since that was reported. The  1 degree spike was very short and very sudden, so probably an anomaly, so it was decided to use the temperature before and after that spike and label the spike but not use it for the official records. In urban areas the temprerature was even higher than on the official meadow.

And another record was set. Last night was the warmest night ever measured. The mercury at the end of the night, usually the coldest moment, remained stuck at 25.6  °C in Deelen. It's been climbing since but it looks like it's just going to miss yesterday's record by 1 degree or so.

Since last night we have an official heatwave.

This is exceptional according to meteorologists, because of the proximity of the sea which usually limits the possible temperature rise.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 26, 2019, 08:25:34 am
Does the Gulf Stream have anything to do with the heat wave in Europe?

I'm not sure if specifically the Gulf Stream is causing the current heat wave, but there is evidence that the air currents in general have changed in the recent years.
It is not important which of the air streams is causing a particular weather change, since this is not something you can control.
 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 26, 2019, 08:36:44 am
Does the Gulf Stream have anything to do with the heat wave in Europe?

It's a combination of factors. A barely moving high-pressure system over the North-Eastern part of Europe transports warm land wind from Southern Europe to the North and reduces Relative Humidity during the day. The cooling effect of the Sea is less in countries next to the Sea. And global temperatures are rising, mostly over the Northern Hemisphere.

That heat also extracts a lot of moisture from the land/plants/crops. Lack of water, after not fully having recovered from last year's drought, causes crop failure and increases wildfire risks. In my country, the use of surface water for irrigation is prohibited. Like last year, it's probably going to be only a good year for wine, even at our higher latitudes.

Cheers,
Bart

P.S. A while ago I 've read about a change in the meandering pattern of the jet-streams around the Arctic circle, but I'm not sure if that still plays a role in this particular heatwave. That change was supposed to cause High- and Low-pressure systems to move slower, become more stationary.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 26, 2019, 09:11:57 am
I remember years ago when New York City had a water drought. We usually very good here in the Northeast as far as rain goes. But back then we had no water for a while or at least ienough quantities to make a difference. So they stopped serving water in restaurants you had to ask for it.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on July 26, 2019, 09:15:54 am
Nope, the cooling, shifting GF has to be absolved of guilt: it's changed pressure areas driving African desert winds up through Europe and further northwards.

The fact that polar areas are melting puts more cold water into the system, and that system has to cope with that additional cold water, which will eventially heat up as the normally hotter waters also rise due to the other influences affecting the overall system.

As water is at its most dense at just under 4 degrees C, and not when ice, the cold water/melted ice caps/hotter water ratios, as they affect the ultimate levels of the seas, make for interesting calculations and conclusions.

No doubt we have suitable armchair experts here who will tell us what to expect.

:-)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Ray on July 26, 2019, 07:43:19 pm
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

Wow! That certainly is alarming. All-Time Record! What does 'all-time' mean? Surely it must mean 'since the Big Bang'. Isn't that when time began?  ;D
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on July 26, 2019, 07:47:34 pm
It means since the "media" started worrying about stuff like this.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 26, 2019, 08:58:42 pm
Europeans who now don't use air conditioning much, will now run out and install AC's like crazy.  Electricity use will triple.  Fossil fuel plants will re-open. CO2 production will choke the polar bears and temperatures will hit 45 degrees C.   
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 26, 2019, 11:39:50 pm
Complete structures can collapse in these record heat temperatures.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhPC51ycqK0
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 26, 2019, 11:51:45 pm
Complete structures can collapse in these record heat temperatures.

Let alone snowflakes ;)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 27, 2019, 01:27:25 am
And now something to please our alarmist friends:
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 27, 2019, 02:05:16 am
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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on July 27, 2019, 04:42:15 am
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

If it's CNN, how can you possibly quote it?

;-)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 27, 2019, 06:18:06 am
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/
Quote
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.)

Quote
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.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 27, 2019, 09:19:55 am
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?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 27, 2019, 09:26:10 am
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?

Good point.  We effect the land. The whole middle of the US has been farmed for a couple of hundred years due to population increase.  That's affected the earth.  There are hundreds of things we do that affects the earth.  Unless we plan on limiting births through force like China did with their one-child policy, we're not going to change much.  Even China still has 1.4 billion people, so that didn't work anyway.  We have to trust that the earth will take care of itself.  It adapts; we adapt. That doesn;t mean we shouldn't try be good stewards of the environment and nature.  But just be reasonable.  A little humility about our limited power would be helpful. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on July 27, 2019, 09:51:47 am
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?

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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 27, 2019, 09:54:53 am
... 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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 27, 2019, 10:05:32 am
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. :)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on July 27, 2019, 10:36:42 am
What, you think you couldn't make it happen again, worldwide this time?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl

The first one was largely ignorance-led; that excuse is now redundant. I see it hasn't taken long for the mindset to return, though, within an educated group of those with the ability to be movers and shakers, that should be far more aware and willing to think about prevention and act accordingly. But no...

It's driving part of the African migration; across the world Mongolian wanderers have had to give up their herds and try to gather in cities; China and Russia face similar, and if this temperature change keeps up, Europe will fare little better. It's not just a bunch of have-nots looking for a free lunch, any more than it was for the Oakies.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 27, 2019, 10:58:14 am
... to think about prevention and act accordingly. But no...

Like what? Banning plastic straws? Erecting more Don Quixote enemies?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 27, 2019, 11:53:37 am
Like what? Banning plastic straws? Erecting more Don Quixote enemies?

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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 27, 2019, 11:57:26 am
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.

I'm not so sure that Canada would let you in. Aren't they planning to build a wall to keep the Americans out?

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on July 27, 2019, 11:58:28 am
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

Okay, Bart, tell us what you think the "cup of water" is.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 27, 2019, 12:08:37 pm
... 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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 27, 2019, 12:47:51 pm
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.

Making the bows and arrows will be easy, but there won't be any lunch game to hunt for.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 27, 2019, 01:05:39 pm
quote author=Slobodan Blagojevic link=topic=131117.msg1121489#msg1121489 date=1564239494]
Quote
Like what? Banning plastic straws? Erecting more Don Quixote enemies?

That's a good suggestion, Slobodan. Banning plastic straws is an excellent first initiative. But since many youths are now unable to drink without a straw, some education may be needed.
In Singapore, they invented and documented a not too difficult method to tackle this challenge:

Quote
In a highly technical yet precise manner, the forum user breaks it down into 5 simple steps that is achievable enough.

https://mothership.sg/2018/07/kfc-no-straw/
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on July 27, 2019, 01:52:50 pm
Like what? Banning plastic straws? Erecting more Don Quixote enemies?

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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 27, 2019, 02:15:56 pm
Okay, Bart, tell us what you think the "cup of water" is.

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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 27, 2019, 02:26:32 pm
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.

Fully agree, but I'm afraid it will fall on deaf ears.

It's even being used to troll (and demonstrate ignorance):
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49090643
Quote
"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."

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 27, 2019, 02:51:09 pm
... 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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on July 27, 2019, 03:18:34 pm
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.


Nothing to do with feeling righteous at all. Everything to do with cutting out waste and expense where possible, knowing it has the added advantage of being a useful effort. Everything helps in the battle against waste and the associated cost in energy terms of useless consumption. Regarding the straws, think of the energy saving in not producing the silly things in the first place, never mind the buying of them and then the clearing away of them.

Looking after the pennies helps the pounds look after themselves, you know.

;-)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on July 27, 2019, 03:21:41 pm
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

Hi Bart, I'd probably read it if I had time, but I've been seeing and reading about the end of civilization -- due to global warming, due to population overload, etc., etc., etc., (seems to me the most recent one was Algore's movie) -- for the past fifty years. Every one of those predictions has turned out to be wrong. This one will too.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 27, 2019, 03:25:16 pm
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.

Actually, I found that the little things add up.
For example, you might start with posting just a few thoughts a day, and over the years it could add up to over 14,000 entries.
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. In more practical terms, that means saving my bushes, improving the air quality in this neighbourhood and eating daily organic and highly anti-oxidant fruit for the whole summer.

And to reduce dependency on the AC, I have two large maple trees shading half of the house. They started quite small.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on July 27, 2019, 03:31:19 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 27, 2019, 03:37:58 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on July 27, 2019, 03:55:11 pm
Well, at least it'll keep you busy.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on July 27, 2019, 03:59:01 pm
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.

Which illustrates perfectly why every little bit helps.

It may not solve anything by itself, but many different little bits help things along in all sorts of ways. The worst aporoach is to give up and keep digging the hole deeper and deeper.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 27, 2019, 04:00:39 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 27, 2019, 04:01:31 pm
... The worst aporoach is to give up and keep digging the hole deeper and deeper.

Actually, that is my preferred action. After all, Bart told us it is already too late, so why bother? Might as well enjoy it while it lasts.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 27, 2019, 04:08:45 pm
I personally rarely, if ever, use straws, however...
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 27, 2019, 07:33:43 pm
I personally rarely, if ever, use straws, however...

Now you'll be buying them to support Trump?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49090643
Quote
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.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on July 27, 2019, 07:50:42 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 27, 2019, 07:58:57 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 27, 2019, 08:07:14 pm
The status quo, still accelerating:
(https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_full_record.png)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 27, 2019, 09:26:57 pm
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.

Why do you need the straws? They will make you flatulent and old looking.
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.

Quote
“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.”

https://www.littlethings.com/dangers-drinking-straw/2
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 27, 2019, 10:13:06 pm
Why do you need the straws? They will make you flatulent and old looking.
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 27, 2019, 10:29:34 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 28, 2019, 12:13:35 am
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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 28, 2019, 12:42:23 am
Both, the tiny straws and gigantic ships are a problem. As to the effects of flatulence, the methane in the air can indeed warm up the atmosphere, and indirectly also the oceans.

Quote
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.

https://phys.org/news/2018-11-zealand-whale-strandings-linked-ocean.html
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Ray on July 28, 2019, 01:41:56 am
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

Thanks for the link, Bart. This report seems to be consistent with Professor Stephen Schneider's recommendation that climate scientists should be prepared to sacrifice some of the the truth in order to be politically effective.

I had a look at the abstract of the report in Nature.com, and discovered the headline is:
"No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era"

'No evidence' is not 'evidence'. Didn't you mention in a previous post that temperature records prior to the 1850's are not as accurate as current records because they rely upon proxies, such as ice cores, tree rings and sediment analysis?

Another comment on the report:

"Raphael Neukom and colleagues assess the global patterns of climate variability during the Common Era, using data compiled from nearly 700 proxy records of temperature changes. In their Nature paper, they report that before the 20th century, climate epochs did not occur simultaneously across the globe as previously thought."

Less than 700 proxy records to examine the degree of global consistency of climate changes during the past 2,000 years, compared with the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of instrumental records we have for the 100 years or so since industrialisation!! Wow!! It's no wonder that Climatology is often described as a 'soft' science.  ;)

The other point I take issue with is, 'as previously thought'. The global extent of the Roman Warm Period, the MWP, and the LIA have always been contentious due to a lack of sufficiently accurate and widespread data.

The Michael Mann 'Hockey Stick' graph which seemed to obliterate the existence of the MWP as a global event, was severely criticised because a number of scientific studies already existed at the time, at least implying that the MWP was global. The issue led to a court case in which Mann struggled to defend his reputation.

Another issue which seems like an excellent example of a 'strawman argument', is the following comment.

Quote
“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.

I've never heard any such argument from the skeptics. It's understood, at least by the skeptics whose opinions I've come across, that there are numerous influences on climate, which are too complex to accurately quantify. Only a fool would claim that humanity's activities have no influence on climate.

I would argue that it's a universal truth that nothing is permanent, although the degree of permanency varies enormously depending on the nature of the subject. Most complex systems are constantly subject to change. All life- forms change as they age, and eventually die. Buildings and infrastructure gradually decay, mountains gradually erode and new mountains are gradually created due to volcanic eruptions and plate tectonics, and so on.

Everything is subject to a process of 'cause and effect'.

I would say it's a reasonable hypothesis that the current warming might be more homogenous and synchronous, globally, than certain previous warm periods, due to mankind's increased activities in general, including, in particular, changing the environment by cutting down huge areas of forests, building cities, suburbs and roads world-wide, which create an Urban Heat Island effect, and ceasing to return our natural waste products such as crop residue, faeces and urine, back to the soil.

It's only reasonable to assume that emissions of CO2 due to the burning of fossil fuels must contribute at least something to the current warming, even though water vapour is by far a more significant greenhouse gas in total.

What concerns me about the demonisation of CO2 is the disregard, and even denial of the benefits of increased CO2 levels, which can be demonstrated in a 'hard science' way through repeated experiments, growing plants in an environment with increased CO2 levels, and observing the results.

Since we know with certainty that CO2 is essential for all life, and that most plants thrive on elevated levels, why not exploit the benefits to improve the environment, instead of ignoring the benefits?

The environment can be improved through reforestation. Newly planted forests will grow more quickly in elevated levels of CO2 and the increased precipitation that inevitably results from warming will also help.

It's also well established that modern agriculture tends to degrade our soils, reduces the biodiversity of the soil, and reduces the carbon content of the soil.
Changing this system for the better would potentially happen more quickly and more profitably with elevated CO2 levels. Instead of trying to eliminate CO2 emissions, why not sequester the carbon in the soil to restore the natural biodiversity of the soil, as well as continuing with the development of alternative forms of energy such as solar power, which would obviously be of great benefit as fossil fuel supplies dwindled and became more expensive, regardless of concerns about climate change?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on July 28, 2019, 08:14:38 am
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 28, 2019, 08:29:19 am
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 ...

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 28, 2019, 09:20:18 am
Too bad it isn't a cartoon, like Slobodan likes to post, but then there is little to laugh about the rate of increase ...

Cheers,
Bart
Bart, What do you think about Ray's explanation in his last post how increased CO2 levels can also help the environment?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 28, 2019, 09:22:47 am
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 28, 2019, 09:32:17 am
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.

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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 28, 2019, 09:38:02 am
Wearable air conditioning. Never mind the Middle East.  They need it in Europe.
https://www.esquireme.com/content/37358-sonys-wearable-air-conditioner-is-exactly-what-the-middle-east-needs
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on July 28, 2019, 09:45:47 am
Too bad it isn't a cartoon. . .

It's not? ;D ;D 8)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 28, 2019, 09:46:47 am
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.

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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_urine_patches

Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: degrub on July 28, 2019, 09:52:42 am
Yet another reason to reduce industrial meat production or at least force more appropriate waste handling.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 28, 2019, 10:12:31 am
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.   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. 


While I think we should be good stewards of the environment, we also should not go off half cocked.  A few decades ago I recall how experts were saying population increases will cause world-wide starvation. It didn't happen.  Sure there are pockets where people are hurting.  But those issues are more related to politics and poor distribution rather than not being enough food available.  Let's not overdo the climate change rhetoric.  It's been going on forever.  There are pluses as well as negatives.  Also, there are other important  things to do with our limited economic resources.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Ray on July 28, 2019, 10:28:35 am
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

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?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 28, 2019, 10:32:27 am
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.   

The Burmese pythons are indeed a serious problem. It is most remarkable that they established themselves in Florida in such a short time, just since 2000. Right now, they are still only in Florida, but it's only question of time before they will expand through the entire US south. 

Quote
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.

https://cbs12.com/news/local/gator-vs-python-a-deadly-growing-battleground-in-the-florida-everglades
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 28, 2019, 10:46:15 am
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?

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.

Quote
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.

https://www.agupdate.com/agriview/news/business/dutch-invent-cow-toilet/article_d16a86ad-f47b-56b9-aca9-c7c8b10effbe.html
 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 28, 2019, 11:02:51 am
About that manure...

Problem (emphasis mine):

Quote
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?

As described in the book Freakonomics:

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 28, 2019, 11:40:58 am
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. 

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.
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 28, 2019, 12:00:59 pm
Bart, What do you think about Ray's explanation in his last post how increased CO2 levels can also help the environment?

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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 28, 2019, 12:11:01 pm
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
 

For those who are geoblocked from watching the content, here's the source of this innovation:
https://www.hanskamp.nl/en/cowtoilet

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on July 28, 2019, 12:21:31 pm
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.

:-)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 28, 2019, 01:01:35 pm
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.

:-)

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.

Quote
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.

https://www.treehugger.com/lawn-garden/is-male-pee-better-than-female-pee-the-compost-conundrum.html
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 28, 2019, 01:06:52 pm
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

But I was reading that the earth has the equivalent of additional green area twice the size of the US due to CO2 and warming.  That's got to count for something.  It's not all negative.  Trees, grass and all the critters that are supported by it.  My gripe is none of the scientists talk about this. Only the negatives.  The news article and especially the nature programs keep repeating hot hot hot CO2 CO2 CO2 solar solar solar.  Never, nature is expanding in a lot of areas and helping a lot of different species including man.  My men's club invited an environmental scientist from nearby Princeton University to give a speech to our group about climate change and global warming.  He was so frustrating only showing charts that highlighted the negatives.  I thought I was sitting in a political rally.  He reeked from bias.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 28, 2019, 01:12:42 pm
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.

:-)
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 28, 2019, 01:20:51 pm
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.
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.
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? 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on July 28, 2019, 04:28:29 pm
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

Our last two bitches were definitely untreated/unreconsctructed? bitches: the earlier one was about the size of a fox, the last one an alsabrador, which tells the tale (groan) of its own descent. They turned the lawn lushly dark and tough, even here in Spain, in the case of the big one. Being, apparently, creatures of habit, they both tended to favour the same location each time, and that concentrated devotion brough the colour into our lawn-lives. That there could well be a balance, a pH value that is critical, I know not. We never had male dogs and I wasn't, myself, much given to al fresco urinational urges - unless when we took the toboggan and kids to the local park, when the balance between pressure and possible frostbite kept me respectable.

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.

What I discovered as I grew old, was that a couple of nocturnal visits to the can result in two possible morning greetings: benign lemonade or stingingly powerful beer, neither of which originate from the actual logical sources, as described, because I seldom touch them. Potent stuff, pee. Perhaps I should use a chamber pot for a while and empty it on the lawn to check the theories. However, that might result in a broken ankle, do perhaps not so clever for someone living alone, even if in the name of science.

We could perhaps start a new section on pee genres. Could prove of educational value.

:-)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 28, 2019, 05:36:33 pm
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.

:-)

There is a wealth of information on fertilizing the lawns and vegetable gardens with human urine. The main rule is to dilute it - at least 1:2 or even 1:10 for young plants. A family of four creates enough urine to fertilize a third of an acre. Applicable if you live in a house, problematic if you live in an apartment. You save also hundreds of gallons of clean water which would be otherwise used for flushing.

Quote
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.

https://insteading.com/blog/human-urine-fertilizer/
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 30, 2019, 09:10:53 am
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. 

The pythons made it now all the way to Toronto.

(https://images.twnmm.com/c55i45ef3o2a/3acpw4JUQS5v5jxprGgeUB/c891b467e0e64cc10052baf52a638f83/snake1.jpg?w=680&fm=jpg)

Quote
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.

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/news/article/python-snake-found-at-toronto-esso-gas-station-victoria-park-avenue-danforth-avenue
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 30, 2019, 10:22:15 am
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

Just in time for the warm weather.  If they could vote, they'd be in favor of global warming and climate changes.  See.  I told you there were pluses. :)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on July 30, 2019, 12:18:56 pm
It could be worse. They could be cobras or banded kraits.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 30, 2019, 01:50:22 pm
It could be worse. They could be cobras or banded kraits.

Or more realistically, giant ticks (Hyalomma). A number of sightings have been reported in my country last month, coming in from Germany.

(https://images.e-vision.nl/naturetoday/images/optimized/2a5f1e50-773a-49e6-85d0-4845c46002f3.jpg&w=770)

Our common sheep tick or dog tick (Ixodes ricinus) passively waits for a passing host at an elevated location in the vegetation. Hyalomma actively searches for hosts. The adult hyaloma-tick has a preference for large animals. Adult Hyalomma hide on the ground and actively run for a host when they perceive certain signals, including vibrations, visual signals, carbon dioxide, ammonia or body temperature. They can visually recognize the host from three to nine meters. Adult ticks can follow the host for ten minutes or more and during that time they walk a distance of up to one hundred meters.

That's not extremely fast, but actively being hunted is a bit unsettling, especially due to the potential spreading of the terrible (ebola-like) deceases they can host. Better keep moving at a reasonable walking speed, no breaks allowed.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on July 30, 2019, 02:18:00 pm
The Germans are always attacking you guys.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 30, 2019, 02:28:50 pm
A friend of mine picked up a tick just walking in park (this was in central Germany, and they have many ticks indeed). The tick must have jumped at his shoe and then it travelled inside the pant on his leg all the way up, then it burrowed into the skin just millimeters from the warmest spot on his body. Removal by hand or with tweezers was impossible, he ended up in emergency where they removed the tick surgically.

Until recently, there were hardly any ticks in Ontario, but in the last years they moved in. And as I mentioned in another post, we have here now an invasion of Japanese beetles, yesterday during my walk to the nearby marsh I saw hundreds of them just on one vine plant. They are very destructive, not only eat they all the leaves, but by doing that, they effectively kill the plants.   
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 30, 2019, 02:38:26 pm
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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Peter McLennan on July 30, 2019, 02:47:43 pm
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


Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on July 30, 2019, 03:38:29 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 30, 2019, 04:03:29 pm
Good luck with them, Bart. I hope they'll end up like the Nazis did.

You mean, fleeing to South America?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 30, 2019, 05:14:55 pm
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 for DEET manufacturers. Buy their stock. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: BAB on July 30, 2019, 06:54:27 pm
While in Rome I’ve now come to understand Roman baths. They told me they most used the baths in the afternoon when the water was warm? These days it’s so hot here I would think the re enactment is in order. Heck two weeks ago I think it hit 107 !


As we say you can run but you can’t hide



Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on July 30, 2019, 09:33:55 pm
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.

Russ, I sincerely hope you can keep your heads (and property) above the rising water levels.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on July 31, 2019, 07:17:53 am
I don't think the problem is the levels of the oceans. I think the problem may be that Florida is sinking under the weight of New Yorkers moving here to escape the tax situation up there.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on July 31, 2019, 10:48:40 am
You mean, fleeing to South America?

;-)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 31, 2019, 11:14:28 am
You know the sky is falling when the loony-left newspaper has to fact-check the loony left (and Bart)
(emphasis mine):

Quote
“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.)

The scientists, however:

Quote
“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.”

The Washington Post
https://apple.news/Avr0i5n05TcqQIbxDkQ7Ymg
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 31, 2019, 10:58:36 pm
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..

Quote
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.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2211366-china-is-on-track-to-meet-its-climate-change-goals-nine-years-early/
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 31, 2019, 11:04:05 pm
... China’s shift from heavy industry to a high tech service economy...

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the shrieks of the climate alarmists, but everything to do with a natural cycle in developing economies.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 31, 2019, 11:08:11 pm
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..

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/)
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."

Second, I wouldn't believe any information the Chinese give out.  They lie all the time.  The said they wouldn't militarize the South China Sea islands as they were constructing it.  Totally a lie. Today they're all major armed bases.

Third, they had planned to build 850 coal fired electric plants throughout the world over the next decade or so.  So they will be polluting and adding huge amounts of CO2 but in other countries.  The earth doesn;t care who produces the schmutz.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 31, 2019, 11:22:47 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on July 31, 2019, 11:39:27 pm
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.

First off, CO2 isn't pollution.  So they could reduce pollution but still have no effect on CO2 production.

Second, what good is if they cut down CO2 in their country but shift the production to other countries with 850 coal fired plants that they plan on selling and building in those nations? 

Third, without a target, like countries were suppose to meet in the PAris Accord, you have to trust them to do something.  Frankly, they will do nothing to stop their economic machine, pollution and CO2 be damned.  Sure they'll cut schmutz in the cities because they have to breathe.  But they won't go beyond that and will do nothing to stop economic progress.  The basic problem with CO2 and pollution is population.  Especially people who want to enter the middle class.  China has another billion of those who are clamoring to match the 400 million that are in the middle class and better.  That means all those little cities they failed to include in their calculations that will grow and add to the increase in CO2.  Then when they don;t meet any standard in 2030, they just say they need an extension to 2035 or 2040.  You can't really believe anything they say. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on July 31, 2019, 11:58:05 pm
I do my own part in fighting the pollution:
Among other things, not flying to China and reusing the plastics bags.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on August 01, 2019, 12:49:57 am
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.   
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 01, 2019, 01:03:19 am
Damn Canadian snow birds! Why don’t you take, say, sea shells a a souvenir from Florida, instead of pythons?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 01, 2019, 10:00:14 am
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.   

That's how the problem started in Florida.  As family pythons got big, people dumped them in the Everglades before they were attacked and eaten by their pets. Of course, it may be too cold for them to survive in the "wild" up there.  YOu could ship them down to my NYC where we could dump them in our warmer subways where they can eat our alligators.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 01, 2019, 10:04:01 am
On some Brooklyn street.


(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-pxhYhdc2dpY/TmGxMKphzoI/AAAAAAAAMKg/agZOy8kWjxA/s1600/securedownload-6.jpeg)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 01, 2019, 11:48:11 am
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.

It indeed looks like it, and maybe even ahead of schedule:
China is on track to beat its peak-emissions pledge
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/07/china-is-on-track-to-beat-its-peak-emissions-pledge/

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

The environmental Kuznets curve (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuznets_curve#Environmental_Kuznets_curve) is an interesting way to analyze, but it will need backing up with actual emission observations.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on August 02, 2019, 03:42:56 am
Thousands of residents in the Derbyshire town of Whaley Bridge have been evacuated amid fears a dam could collapse after it was damaged by floodwaters.

Quote
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".

(https://cdn1.spiegel.de/images/image-1454891-860_poster_16x9-mqgn-1454891.jpg)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/08/01/whaley-bridge-dam-collapse-latest-news-derbyshire-town-evacuated/
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on August 02, 2019, 03:52:52 am
Hot Map

(https://cdn1.spiegel.de/images/image-1453435-galleryV9-wnms-1453435.jpg)

Heatwave over Europe. The image as captured by Esa-Satelite "Sentinel-3s" shows the record air temperatures on July 25 2019.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 02, 2019, 08:56:24 am
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)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on August 02, 2019, 09:45:00 am
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)

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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on August 02, 2019, 09:50:40 am
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)


You join one step too late: it's the fact of the trappings and what caused them that is the point. It is the inevitable temp/pressure alterations that are happening outwith the natural rhythm of Earth's tilt and the relative seasonal closeness of its parts to the Sun.

You set in motion higher temps in one region and those can't just be restrained to that region: like an unfortunate fart in a restaurant, it can ruin everything from the starter to the final chocolate nibble with your coffee if the room is big enough to permit a slow dispersion. Especially if the place isn't busy and it lacks the critical number of lungs to neutralise the toxic gas.

In like manner to that gas in the restaurant, spreads the heat across the world's areas, and in directions where existing pressures at any given moment dictate.



Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 02, 2019, 09:58:32 am
Hot Map..l

Clearly localized. Where is the “global” part?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on August 02, 2019, 10:06:38 am
Clearly localized. Where is the “global” part?

Another map, few hours later:
(https://www.carbonbrief.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Data-visualisation-of-air-temperatures-over-Europe-on-Thursday-25-July-2019-at-4pm-bst.jpg)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on August 02, 2019, 10:25:56 am
You see what happened there, on that second map? Southern Europe and my little Balearic island; Sicily, the heartland of the Mafia vanished, along with Sardinia and the kidnap kings. Blame the forest fires and the steam arising from the Med: satellite blindness - old tech.

:-(
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 02, 2019, 10:27:49 am
Clearly localized. Where is the “global” part?

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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 02, 2019, 10:38:45 am
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)

I'm not sure it has to do with climate change.  Even the article notes some important differences between Climate Change and heatwaves.  Unfortunately, everyone reacts automatically jumping to conclusions. 


From the linked article.


"This is double the heatwave temperature increase expected by climate models – which are used to make projections about future climate change, van Oldernborgh says:

“The models only predict that heatwaves get warmer at about 1.5C per degree of global warming. So for every degree of global warming, they predict that heatwaves get 1.5C hotter – a little bit faster but not really exceptional.”

The world has seen around 1C of global warming so far – meaning that the models would expect heatwaves to be around 1.5C hotter today than in pre-industrial times. However, temperatures during this heatwave were actually around 3C warmer, he says:

“We really need to do a lot more serious research than we can do within one week to look at why there is such a big discrepancy between the observed trends and the modelled trends.

“But heatwaves are very special. A lot of things come together for a heatwave – heat from the Sahara, local heating due to sunshine, the reaction of vegetation due to very hot conditions – and all these things have to be modelled right. I’m just afraid that these models that have been designed to project the average climate correctly cannot handle these very extreme situations very well.”

The findings are yet to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. However, the methods used in the analysis have been published in previous attribution studies."
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 02, 2019, 10:44:11 am
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.   
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on August 02, 2019, 10:47:10 am
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.


Yeah, just one of those things that happen. Like getting killed by a bus. Because you were too busy to look where you were going.

Rob
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 02, 2019, 11:51:12 am
Quote
... why there is such a big discrepancy between the observed trends and the modelled trends.

"Predictions are hard... especially about the future."

 ;D ;D ;D

Who would have thought that artificially constructed models should not be confused with reality!? Remember that the summer Arctic polar cap should have been melted already and Maldives underwater by now, according to "models."
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 02, 2019, 12:05:26 pm
Quote
    ... why there is such a big discrepancy between the observed trends and the modelled trends.

Is there?

Quote
Remember that the summer Arctic polar cap should have been melted already and Maldives underwater by now, according to "models."

You should not confuse politicians or bloggers with scientists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41TCWEl-x_g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aQqTFGxrmg

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on August 06, 2019, 09:28:00 am
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 06, 2019, 10:10:40 am
Be nice to Bart.  He's my friend.  :)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 06, 2019, 10:18:01 am
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.

And let's not forget, all that for farms that only produce power 10% to, at most, 30% of the time. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on August 06, 2019, 10:19:46 am
Be nice to Bart.  He's my friend.  :)

Bart's a good guy, just deluded.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 06, 2019, 11:04:38 am
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]
And let's not forget, all that for farms that only produce power 10% to, at most, 30% of the time. 
[/size]
It's part of the reason Germany has not reduced it's CO2 production even though 40% of it's electricity production comes from renewables.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 06, 2019, 12:34:47 pm
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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 06, 2019, 12:55:49 pm
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. 

Even many environmentalist that are pro-wind/solar admit that neither will ever be a base load power source just due to the expense, massive amount of land required to produce the same amount of energy and, most importantly, that wind/solar are so intermittent. 

Additionally, all those extra jobs mean that more money will need to be allocated to payroll, which raises the price of power.  Having power that is too expensive will evetually weaken the overall economy. 

All of this, by the way, is being proven by Germany.  Their carbon emissions have not gone down and their energy prices have gone up.  "Energy poverty" is a new term coined in Germany as a result of power being so much higher then neighboring countries it is putting people into poverty. 

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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 06, 2019, 01:51:18 pm
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.

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
Quote
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.”

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.

Quote
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.

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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on August 06, 2019, 02:19:03 pm
Renewable Energy Will Be Consistently Cheaper Than Fossil Fuels By 2020, Report Claims[/b]
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dominicdudley/2018/01/13/renewable-energy-cost-effective-fossil-fuels-2020/
[/quote]

 ;D ;D ;D :o :o :o 8) 8) 8) ;D ;D ;D ROTFL!

Bart, I wish I could simply type in the whole article, but if I did that I'd be violating the guy's copyright. He's right on the money. It simply ain't gonna happen. He didn't even mention the butchery of birds that results from windmills, and the frying that  results from solar panels. What he talked about was the requirement for materials, including rare earths necessary to put this junk together. It's a convincing article, and he makes clear why it won't happen.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 06, 2019, 03:59:29 pm
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

No real data is provided in this article, only referenced.

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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 06, 2019, 04:10:29 pm
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/ (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
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.


It also stops a move to a better product possible like your suggested Hydrogen based.  But as long as the government plays favorites, picking one fuel over another, the free market cannot work which would select the best possible methods.  Companies go where the money is.  If government gives you credits, you're going to use that fuel.  Meanwhile a better fuel will be sidelined because it's more expensive relative to the government favoritism.  Keep the government out of it.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 06, 2019, 04:29:51 pm
No real data is provided in this article, only referenced.

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. 
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? 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on August 06, 2019, 04:46:11 pm
The time will come, Alan -- when people need power and find out they can't get it from so-called "renewable" energy. Our current problem started with "The China Syndrome," and was exacerbated by the Russian fiasco.The politics will change somewhere down the line because nuclear is the only workable option, unless something equivalent to nuclear suddenly pops up. Any such popup is being retarded by the left's fanatical focus on (intermittent) wind and sun.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on August 06, 2019, 06:12:41 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 06, 2019, 07:05:31 pm
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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 06, 2019, 07:24:26 pm
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. 


NYS's democrat Governor Cuomo, who wants to be President someday,  is planning on spending $3.2 billion for offshore wind for 1 million homes or $3200 per home.  Of course, you know the final cost will be higher.  Even the design estimate doesn;t include the offset backup power plant costs.   This is why Germany with 40% of its electric coming from renewables spends 2 1/2 times more per KWH than in the US.  The NYS governor will have the utility subsidize much of this through higher electric costs to their users.  But the Governor directed that those costs will not be itemized by the utility on rate-payer bills.  So the public will never learn how much they're paying for all this "free" electricity.   


This is why people like me see the whole push for renewables as BS.  There's no trust we're being told the truth about anything.  How could there be?
https://nypost.com/2019/07/22/cuomos-incredible-wind-power-pander/ (https://nypost.com/2019/07/22/cuomos-incredible-wind-power-pander/)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 06, 2019, 07:34:47 pm
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.

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
Quote
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.

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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 06, 2019, 07:37:34 pm
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

But at what cost?  When I got into energy management and conservation systems work in the 1970's after the first oil crisis, everyone was looking for ways to save energy and reduce utility costs.  One method that was tried was  using electricity furnished at night to air condition office buildings during the day.  Electric rates are lower at night.  So they would produce huge quantities of ice at night to be stored in a ice-storage building.  Then during the day, that ice would be use to provide air conditioning to the office building so no daytime electricity would be required.  It was a great idea.  But it turned out to be impractical and expensive.  First off, where do you store the ice?  NYC and most large cities don;t have spare land just lying around.  Plus the engineering and cost to build and maintain was prohibitive.  So the concept died.  You would have similar problems with traditional batteries, hydrogen storage, etc that you recommended.  Just like "free" solar and wind, the devil is in the details.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 06, 2019, 07:48:34 pm
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?

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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 06, 2019, 07:50:16 pm
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

Only the liberal, pro-renewables NY Times can take an advantage and make it into a disaster.  Obviously, the writer of that article never went to Economics 101.  The more of any product, the lower the cost to the consumer.  If there's a glut, so they make less profit.  Don;t we photographers benefit when competition among the camera manufacturers goes up.  Prices go down and we run out and buy another full frame camera that we didn't need. :) .  That's how it's supposed to work.  Do you worry about Nikon's profits? Or Kodaks' or Exxons' for that matter.  If a product loses its acceptance, the company can go out of business. That's how the world works?  Film, Polaroid, horse buggy manufacturers, etc.  Even oil.  All that happens is the money and industry goes elsewhere.  People still work.  People still eat.  That's how the world modernizes.  Don;t be nervous.


Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 06, 2019, 07:54:18 pm
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.

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. 

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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 06, 2019, 07:59:54 pm
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

This has been proven to be futile as well. 

You need a damn like structure to take advantage of hydor-storage.  These are expensive to build and can only be built in limited areas, just like actual damns.  On top fo this, only 1% of all water is fresh water, and you can only use fresh water for hydro power since salt water is too corrosive.  The fact is that fresh water is much more important to society to just let sit in a giant damn unused until we need power.   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.   

I have not even heard of any other feasible kinetic and air pressure storage solutions that look even promising in the lab let alone in reality. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 06, 2019, 08:01:21 pm
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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 06, 2019, 08:09:19 pm
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.

The unfortunate thing is that I think, but hope not, that we will go down the German rabbit hole and end up increasing our electricity cost while also increasing our CO2 output, just like Germany, until we finally wake up. 

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. 

So I fear, the left will cut off its nose to spite its face here, meaning their hatred for big companies will keep them from realizing how nuclear is the only option that works.  I hope I am wrong. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 06, 2019, 08:15:50 pm
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. 

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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 06, 2019, 08:19:00 pm
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. 

And these are the real life operating costs all of the wind/solar fans completely ignore. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 06, 2019, 08:30:51 pm
I know, Alan. 

And these are the real life operating costs all of the wind/solar fans completely ignore. 
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.   
 How is that handled?  You might not own them depending on what arrangement you made with the original installer. Then you have the batteries.  They don;t last forever.  Their storage capacity goes down in time and you have to replace them.  Then there's maintenance.  Who's going to clean the panels?  More costs.  Then if you want to sell your house, you could have problems with the mortgage company.  If you bought the solar as a rental or leaseback or whatever, it could affect your mortgage or the new owner's mortgage holding up the sale until it's straightened out.  Frankly, I would never had thought of these issues.  And I guarantee most people who bought solar didn't either.  Regardless, the solar companies and the government don't talk about them either.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Peter McLennan on August 06, 2019, 09:34:25 pm
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.

Quote
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.   

"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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 06, 2019, 10:18:22 pm
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.

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.  It would be huge. 

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.  Sure, water does not rot or go bad, but farm plants and animals do.  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. 

Plus, the idea that we could store water all over the world and 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. 

Even in your British Columbia, the price of water is not comparable to the actual value.  Most of the developed world has set up systems that drastically undercharge for fresh water, which lead many to not even realize how limited a commodity it is. 

My point, it is a much more limited commodity then people realize and if we started to locking it up to use months down the road, the consequences would quickly present themselves in the form of drought and famine.  As soon as farms start dying from not having enough water, your hydro-storage idea will quickly evaporate.  And before you start talking about how we have current fresh water reservoirs, these are currently used throughout the year to mitigate drier periods.  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. 

Additionally, your example of citing where you live really serves no purpose what so ever.  It rains a lot in British Columbia, good for you, that's great, but it really does not matter for the majority of the rest of world.  You citing your massive amount of rain as a reason to use this type of power storage would be like Iceland telling the rest of the world to just use geothermal because it works so well for them.  The only problem is that there are very limited locations in the world where this type of power is feasible. 

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!
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 06, 2019, 10:41:12 pm
Why renewables can’t save the planet | Michael Shellenberger | TEDxDanubia (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-yALPEpV4w)

Great Ted Talk on why wind and solar wont work by Michael Shellenberger, a leftist environmentalist who worked in the wind and solar industry.  There are many more leading environmentalists, physicists, scientists (all on the left) who have all come to the same conclusion. 

In the video, at about 8 minutes in, you see a rather interesting graph showing that nuclear produces more than twice as much energy then wind/solar at half the cost.  If that alone does not convince you wind/solar are wastes of time, you may be an ideologue. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 06, 2019, 10:55:46 pm
Let me state that I get the pleasing idea of living in tandem with nature using only solar and wind.  It is a comforting fairy tale, but at the end of the day, it is still just a fairy tale. 

The people at the beginning of industrial revolution knew how limited wind power was, which is why the adopted coal and oil and gas.  For us to regress backwards because of a false premise that we can live one with nature is misplaced. 

We need to get off of fossil fuels, period.  This does not mean adopting an energy source that forces us to still use fossil fuels as our base load to the point of not even diminishing our CO2 emissions while at the same time increases energy prices, which Germany has shown wind and solar being so good at doing.  But to completely replacing our base load power sources with a clean, reliable and consistent alternative, of which nuclear is the only option. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: David Sutton on August 06, 2019, 11:07:14 pm

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. 


Big companies can do it if their government pays for it. Otherwise, no.
France lost 8% of their available power in the recent heatwave. Six reactors had their output curtailed. Nuclear is useless when the water temperature rises too far, and when flows become sluggish.
They had enough generation capacity to cover demand, but the last figures I saw stated that about a quarter of their reactors would be closed in the next 15 years. That probably deals to their spare capacity.
Unless your country is wealthy and you have rivers immune to climate change, nuclear is not an option.
Renewables are also not an option at a national level. Germany spent over 180 billion euros and failed.
Alas there is no substitute for the foreseeable future for fossil fuels and the many issues arising from that.
It's probably safe to say that within the next 20 years the belief in "progress" will be dead and the way we live will look quite different.

Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Peter McLennan on August 06, 2019, 11:56:09 pm
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".

 
Quote
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.

 
Quote
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?

 
Quote
... 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.


 
Quote
  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.

 
Quote
  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.

 
Quote
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.   

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.

 
Quote
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!

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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 07, 2019, 04:25:29 am
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.

Sorry Joe,

But you cannot take the specific situation that Germany is in and proclaim that that is typical for all other situations.

From its history (the split between East and West Germany, and the reunification), Germany has been using vast amounts of coal. It takes time to close those plants and replace them with something cleaner. So the German CO2 emissions are not due to renewable energy, in fact, they are much lower than they would otherwise have been.

And one of the reasons that it takes time to replace them, is that Germany decided to quit Nuclear power generation quicker than originally planned (bringing write-offs forward in time). That meant that other power sources have to fill in the gap in a growing economy, a lot of which is heavy industry, e.g. making steel and building cars.

But all that is changing, and Germany will be ready for the next steps required. In the meantime, they've built quite an expertise and economy on the production of generators (e.g. Siemens is a world player). It's hard to beat the Chinese on producing low cost Photovoltaics, so that has not been as successful in Germany, but at least they can buy cheaper panels as the Chinese gain experience and improve quality. PVs are not without their own concerns, but they beat the alternatives like fossil fuel.

And it's not about a total replacement of all energy requirements with just PVs, or just wind, it's about a clever combination of multiple sources of energy combined with a smart grid.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 07, 2019, 04:34:42 am
And, again to short circuit the inevitable cheap shots: they no longer kill many birds.  The birds learned.

Indeed, but then humans also learned not to build such wind power generators in the migratory path of birds ...

Nobody ever learns anything useful from sitting on their hands. Innovation takes effort and offers rewards.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: jeremyrh on August 07, 2019, 06:27:49 am

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. 



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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on August 07, 2019, 06:45:55 am
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.
 

Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 07, 2019, 07:20:28 am
Bart, please show me one country, anywhere, that increased their solar and wind use while also decreasing CO2 and energy prices. 

It certainly isn't Germany, and so far as I can tell, no other country has done it either. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 07, 2019, 07:23:25 am
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.

Once again this ignores that fact that the world wide trend is people moving to cities with significantly less roof sqf per person.  Also, manufacturing uses a lot more energy then residences of which there is no where near the amount of roof space to generate the energy they need from wind or solar. 

Last, it is twice as expensive to get electricity from roof panels then from solar farms. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 07, 2019, 07:29:06 am

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)

Emissions decreased a whopping 4.2% from 2017 to 2018.  However most agree it had little to nothing to do with renewables and everything to do with warmer weather leading to less heating. 

But one year does not necessarily mean anything for the long term and their energy prices are still more than 2 times higher then France. 

Germany's Failed Climate Goals (https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-germany-emissions/)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: jeremyrh on August 07, 2019, 07:35:36 am
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


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)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 07, 2019, 07:50:39 am
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.

Peter, your missing the whole point.  Storing water even for a couple of months would still have an effect on crops and farm animals.  Although it may rain a lot where you are, this is not the case in many other places of the world.  What is Mexico City going to do? 

Furthermore, your comment asking how many nuclear plants we would need to generate 50,000 GW while bring up a damn that you have ignores some pretty important items.  First, we are nearly maxed out in the developed world with locations to build damns.  Although there may be places in the 3rd world, we literally have no more places to build damns. 

So, in order to keep up with our energy production, we will need to build more plants, regardless of the type.  Now the international standard is to build plants that can produce 1 GW of electricity.  So, for your example of 50,000 GW, we would need 50,000 plants, either nuclear or wind/solar farms.  A typical 1 GW nuclear plants takes up 3 acres, so we would need 150,000 acres to fill the need.  Best case, from real life data, shows a 1 GW wind/solar farm takes up 1500 acres. 

So to fill the 50,000 GW need with wind/solar farms would require 75,000,000 acres.  To put that in perspective, that is 117187.5 square miles or a square that has sides of 342 miles.  That is more then double the size of NY state!   

Regardless of the type of power, the land needs to be clear cut.  Would you rather destroy 150K acres (about half of NYC) or 75M acres (two entire NY states)? 

Good luck getting the public to adopt the latter.  It always amazes me when so called environmentalists want to pick an energy source (wind/solar) that would completely destroy extremely large areas of natural habitats. 

Insofar as your comment on those states using wind/solar, all, with the exception of TX, have seen their energy prices rise along with emissions.  The only reason TX saw a decrease is because TX is the epicenter for natural gas fracking and natural gas is cheaper there then anywhere else.  So the extreme decrease in the price of gas offset the increases that would have been seen from wind/solar.

Finally, your comment on less birds dying because they smarter really gave me a good laugh.  These wind mills kill large birds, many of which are threatened species.  The reason we see less of them dying is not because they are getting smarter, but because there are less of them around due to being killed.  LOL  It would be like me saying that the Passenger Pigeon wasn't actually hunted to extinction, they just got better at hiding, and that is why we don't see them anymore. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 07, 2019, 07:51:44 am
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.  Only the data over the period of time during the wind/solar up tick is important, and over that time the emissions have not gone down. 

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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: jeremyrh on August 07, 2019, 07:56:39 am
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 07, 2019, 08:01:28 am
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.

Are we going to go back the height of industrial revolution too? 

Over the period in time of Germany going full in on wind/solar, which has only been the last 10 years, the emissions have not decreased.  It makes no sense to go further back like you are doing if we are talking about decreases due to adoption of wind/solar.  This is especially true considering the majority of the graph you supplied is over a period of time where wind/solar was less of a concern.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: jeremyrh on August 07, 2019, 08:05:34 am
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)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: faberryman on August 07, 2019, 08:26:28 am
Jeremyrh, JoeKitchen is asserting what we in the US refer to "alternate facts". Thank you Kellyanne Conway.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 07, 2019, 08:29:00 am
Another false claim

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/timeline/877deb6b597b942ad1f544d6de9fec54.png)

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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 07, 2019, 08:29:32 am
Jeremyrh, JoeKitchen is asserting "alternate facts".

Thanks for the well thought post showing absolutely no data whatsoever to back up your claims. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: jeremyrh on August 07, 2019, 08:42:02 am
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 07, 2019, 08:46:07 am
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.  Germany uses about 556,500 GWH of electricity per year.  Total electricity consumption in Germany largely stable in 2018 (https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/total-electricity-consumption-germany-largely-stable-2018)  The article gives it is KwH, which I converted to GWH, mainly because we are talking in GWH and the KWH figure is much too large. 

The best case calculation from real life data shows it takes 1500 acres of wind/solar to produce 1 GWH.  I know that some pro-renewable articles say ~ 2.9 acres per GW, but this assumes the best conditions 24/7.  Real life date is much less promising.  Areas of industrial wind facilities (http://www.aweo.org/windarea.html)  A quick glance of this data shows that in reality the average is 75 acres to produce one MW and there are 1000 MW in one GW.  So the 1500 acres per GW is still a pretty hopeful stat.  Even at the current best wind farm, the Braes of Doune, Scotland, only needing 14 acres to produce 1 MW, my 1500 acres per one GW is still pretty pie in the sky.  But this is the number many on the left use, so lets stick with it. 

Now if we multiple Germany's electricity usage by 1500, we get about 835M acres that would be needed for total electricity production from wind/solar.  That is a wicked amount of land.  Sure, much of these farms in Germany are in the sea, decreasing the actual land used, but this still adds in the extra cost of maintaining metal parts in a corrosive environment. 

Just due to the shear amount of land needed, there is no way to make wind/solar work without completely destroying the environment along the way. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 07, 2019, 08:52:59 am
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.

Come on now, seriously, 2.9 to 3.3 is a minuscule increase.  No real progress starts until 2004/2005. 

Yes, I agree on the 2nd part of your statement.  I am not taking away from the positive of having less CO2 emitted.  It is just all of the real life data, not the projected data, simply shows wind/solar is a considerably more expensive type of energy that will never be a base load source due to the intermittency.  So, some type of base load power source will always be needed to supply energy the 70% to 90% of the time the farms do not produce energy. 

The data also shows nuclear is considerably less expensive, has even less CO2 emissions and is a base load power source. 

It is a waste of time and money to fool around with wind/solar when they will never be base line sources and we will eventually be utilizing nuclear after fossil fuels run out. 

I would much rather us adopt nuclear sooner to help with climate change then for us to fumble around with wind/solar, all the while using coal/gas for base line plants only to eventually adopt nuclear when we run out of coal/gas.  The former would be much better for the environment, especially since real life data shows that the latter is what we get when we invest in wind/solar. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: jeremyrh on August 07, 2019, 08:54:49 am
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.

Think about what it would take to show that. What sort of controlled experiment would you ask for?

Quote
Lets just think about the total land mass needed for Germany's power needs if produced from wind/solar. 

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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: jeremyrh on August 07, 2019, 08:57:02 am
Come on now, seriously, 2.9 to 3.3 is a minuscule increase.  No real progress starts until 2004/2005. 

Take a look at the red bars on the first graph (energy industries) - there is a peak at 2004 and a 20% decline thereafter.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 07, 2019, 09:00:27 am
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.

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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 07, 2019, 09:02:09 am
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 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. 

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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 07, 2019, 09:17:06 am
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. 

We can all argue about the exact percentages.  I will agree that CO2 production goes down with wind/solar.  That makes sense.  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.  And since the costs are now more than double what it costs for electricity in America and elsewhere in Europe, was it worth it?  What do Germans think subsidizing America, China, India, and others who don;t do anything or are not reaching their promised levels of reduction made in Paris?? 

A question about the charts.  CO2 has been going down even before renewables really kicked in.  Does anyone know why? 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 07, 2019, 09:27:11 am
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. 

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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 07, 2019, 09:42:46 am
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.

Forgot about cars, and certainly a huge part towards decrease in CO2 seen in the first half of the provide graph. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: faberryman on August 07, 2019, 09:45:44 am
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 07, 2019, 09:52:01 am
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 ....

Renewables in Germany close in on 40% of total generation (https://energytransition.org/2018/11/renewables-in-germany/)

I will admit though that this 40% figure I have been seeing in the news lately just seems false.  I have not yet been able to find exactly what went into determining this figure; if you know where I kind find a thorough explanation of how this was determined, please share.  (Notice I say thorough, so if you step up to the plate here, please show an article that has actual data and clearly shows the calculations used to determine it.)   

But, as they say, "figures lie and liars figure." 

I kind of feel like it is probably closer the 13% figure Jeremy supplied. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 07, 2019, 10:08:36 am
Ummmm .... ummmmm ....

Renewables in Germany close in on 40% of total generation (https://energytransition.org/2018/11/renewables-in-germany/)
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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: faberryman on August 07, 2019, 10:10:42 am
Ummmm .... ummmmm ....
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 07, 2019, 10:15:13 am
Isn't it tedious when you can find "facts" all over the map. Hard to know what to believe.

Yes, yes. 

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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: faberryman on August 07, 2019, 10:17:03 am
Yes, yes. 

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.
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 07, 2019, 10:27:42 am
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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 07, 2019, 10:48:20 am
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. 

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.

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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on August 07, 2019, 10:55:25 am
If government were to get out of the "renewable" energy picture, the whole illusion would collapse overnight.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 07, 2019, 11:00:53 am
If government were to get out of the "renewable" energy picture, the whole illusion would collapse overnight.

I think the left really has two options when it comes to fixing climate change. 

Adopt a process that clearly works while also bringing prices down.  As of now, all real life data shows nuclear being the only option.  If we went full in on nuclear, we would see real results in CO2 decreases and the majority of the world be for it, since it would not effect their pocket books all too much. 

The other option would be to force feeding us wind and solar.  All real life data shows it only minimally helps with CO2 while at the same time sky rocketing the price of electricity and destroying large swaths of land.  The outcome of this will be to create resentment towards trying to help with climate change and politicians who don't care about it at all (and some who even deny it) will be elected into office. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: faberryman on August 07, 2019, 11:15:32 am
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.

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. It strikes me that you only want to take contrarian opinions.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 07, 2019, 11:25:08 am
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.

I agree that renewables are much better than "polluting" the air with CO2 and other schmutz.  Those are real positives.  I investigated solar for my house.  But decided against it because I didn't feel the payback made sense for me.  For other people, solar makes sense and they should do it and save money for themselves.   Frankly, if we can figure out how to use water to fuel my car, I would get that car in a NYC minute (if the price was right). I don;t owe Exxon anything.


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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: degrub on August 07, 2019, 11:25:39 am
It is what the LULA Debating Society is all about.
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: faberryman on August 07, 2019, 11:28:30 am
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?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 07, 2019, 11:28:35 am
It is what the LULA Debating Society is all about.
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.
We'd only fight over Robert's Rules. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: degrub on August 07, 2019, 11:30:50 am
at least there is a printed reference  ;D
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 07, 2019, 11:35:10 am
Are there no benefits in the Tax Code for the oil and gas industry? Should those be eliminated as well?

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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 07, 2019, 11:35:15 am
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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: degrub on August 07, 2019, 11:38:52 am
i think you meant ethanol.
methanol would attack many of the softer components in the fuel system.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 07, 2019, 11:41:31 am
i think you meant ethanol.
methanol would attack many of the softer components in the fuel system.
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. :)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 07, 2019, 12:03:33 pm
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.

... or use the surplus during the summer, convert and store it as heat in the ground (which take a bit of room that's not readily available in urban regions), or produce Hydrogen gas from water by means of electrolysis.

Lots of initiatives are taking place that seek to optimize the luxury problem of having surplus free energy.

One such solution uses Salts to store heat:
https://www.tno.nl/en/focus-areas/buildings-infrastructure-maritime/roadmaps/buildings-infrastructure/energy-in-the-built-environment/heat-battery-a-breakthrough-in-the-storage-of-renewable-energy/

http://saltxtechnology.com/

Another initiative by a private person who created his own test unit based on 40 cubic meters of cheap Basalt gravel, that stores heat from solar collectors at some 500-600 °C. We'll have to see how long that lasts.
(https://www.beursbox.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/batterij-1.jpg)

Don't know about your part of the globe, but there's a lot of innovation happening here. People are not complaining about what cannot be done, but are instead doing the things that can be done. Every little bit helps, not every solution will work everywhere, but that knowledge translates to marketable value (as e.g. the Danes have found out selling their Windmill expertise).

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 07, 2019, 12:10:14 pm
Bart, I looked through the articles in vane trying to find real figures, like how much energy is stored per (some unit of) volume?  Also, what is the total amount of energy used for heating during a normal winter in the area this is being developed and how much volume of these materials would you need to make a noticeable impact on heating cost throughout the winter? 

On top of that, how much energy will need to be produced per (some unit of) volume to charge these things, and how much surplus of wind/solar will this take. 

Additionally, assuming we are using most of the electricity from the solar/wind panels that supply energy to these systems, how many more additional solar panels and wind turbines will need to be utilized for these system to be able to absorb the optimal amount of energy to be functional? 

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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: amolitor on August 07, 2019, 12:14:18 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: degrub on August 07, 2019, 12:17:03 pm
we engineers design systems based on facts. Otherwise it is a waste of  resources.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 07, 2019, 12:17:58 pm
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.

Nice try but this has absolutely no baring on this conversation.  This is about wind/solar vs nuclear. 

All real life data, and I mean of it, shows that wind/solar increases cost, uses up extremely large amounts of land (destroying environments) while not really decreasing CO2.  It is also excepted by everyone, on the left and right, that wind/solar will never be base line power sources and we will always need a base line power source. 

All real life data shows nuclear is the cleanest energy source of which nearly 100% of all waste in storable, and helps lower energy cost.  Nuclear is also a base line line power at 1/4 the cost of wind/solar. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 07, 2019, 12:19:30 pm
we engineers design systems based on facts. Otherwise it is a waste of  resources.

I am not really sure who this is meant for, but I would say, yes this a good thing.

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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 07, 2019, 12:20:06 pm
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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 07, 2019, 12:23:36 pm
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

Yes, true.  But I posted this in response to the left talking point that implies oil/gas get as much subsidies as renewables.  This is clearly false, which the numbers show. 

By the way, I am not for oil/gas.  I'd rather we get rid of it. 

I am of the opinion though that concentrating on wind and solar will not lead us down this path, which is clearly being shown by the real life data.  This is why I constantly ask for real life data, and many articles that are pro renewables gloss over it. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: amolitor on August 07, 2019, 12:24:14 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: degrub on August 07, 2019, 12:24:47 pm
I am not really sure who this is meant for, but I would say, yes this a good thing.

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.
exactly my point in support of what you and a few others have been saying.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 07, 2019, 12:29:19 pm
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.

Yes, although this is true, at some point you pass the inflection point of increased gains.  Meaning that the amount of gains you receive will start to be lower for the same amount of money/time invested. (This is a pretty common point to look for when developing new technologies, and also in marketing new products.  Even body builders look at inflection point data to adjust and change workouts.  We have inflection points in the seasons, namely on the two equinoxes, so ignoring the possibility of inflections points and trying to determine if we passed them is not smart.  You cant just say, well this will be fixed by future gains in efficiency since there is a possibility you may have already past the inflection.) 

After all, there is a physical limit to what an object can do, in any thing or purpose or system. 

All physicists who have been following wind and solar all agree we have past the inflection point years ago and any future gains will be minimal. 

To argue against this is the same fool heartiness that exist on the right when they say, well we will figure out some better way in the future to get more fossil fuels out of the ground. 

Additionally, your point of criticizing my insistence on real life data is very naive.  You don't keep on relying on lab results when actual results in the real world can be studied, especially when there is such a huge discrepancy between the two.  It's foolish. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 07, 2019, 12:43:37 pm
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.

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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: jeremyrh on August 07, 2019, 12:54:02 pm
while not really decreasing CO2. 

Can you suggest a way that this could be physically possible?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 07, 2019, 12:54:27 pm
For those that don't understand inflection points, below is a basic graph. 

With any new technology you start at 0.  Additional, there is a physical limit to what anything can do.  (Arguing against this makes no sense and it would be physically impossible.  Everything has a limit.) 

So, of course, in the beginning of new research into technology, you are moving up pretty slowly up.  But you start gaining steam and the increases in gains progressively are more and more for the same amount of investment ... up to a point. 

Eventually the gains you receive from the same amount of investment go down.  Although you are still going up, the increases are just not as much as they were before for the same investment.  This is the inflection point, and where you start to approach the limit of what can be gained in total.

A real life example would be the change in the length of the days.  From December 21st to March 21st, the length of the day increases a little more then it did the day before.  Also, shortly after Dec. 21st, the increases are not very obvious, but since they are ever increasing, become more noticeable as you get closer to Mar. 21st.  After Mar. 21st though the increases become smaller and smaller, until June 21st.  Although you still notice the increases shortly after Mar. 21, the increase in the day become less noticeable as you approach June 21st even though the day is still getting longer.  Of course the opposite happens after June 21st to Sept. 21 and then back to Dec. 21st. 

Nearly everyone agrees that we are past the inflection of fossil fuel production.  To argue against this is foolish.  Many physicists also agree we have past the inflection of increases in efficiencies in wind/solar.  Although not nearly as many people are following this, arguing against this, maybe not foolish yet, but not advisable. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 07, 2019, 12:54:51 pm
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.)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 07, 2019, 01:04:52 pm
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

Sure, but at what point do you stop and start trying something else. 

I am all for trying new things, but I am also for looking at the results and the data to figure out if it is actually working.  Maybe work on it up to and little past the inflection point.  However, after you are far enough along to definitely determine the inflection point and you still cant make it work on a large scale, it's time to call it quits in my opinion. 

At the beginning of my career, I use to walk into photo shoots exceptionally well planned.  The issue though was I was so emotionally attached to my plans that if a better image presented itself, I would not even think to recognize it because of how emotionally attached I was to the plan. 

I feel this is what is happening with wind/solar.  It is an emotionally pleasing idea that we can live in tandem with nature when it comes to our energy needs.  But it just ignores all the data that is coming out.  We are just too emotionally attached to this idea to let it go. 

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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 07, 2019, 01:16:41 pm
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.)
 

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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: amolitor on August 07, 2019, 01:26:29 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 07, 2019, 01:28:23 pm
Can you suggest a way that this could be physically possible?

I can't, but ...

Here is Environmentalist Stewart Brand Touching On It Though (http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2013/02/06/nuclear-matinee-environmentalist-stewart-brand-on-nuclear-energy/#sthash.z7jMFawT.dpbs)

Note, he does say he is for wind and solar on roof tops and other areas that wont effect already existing natural habitats.  But he is still very grounded in that fact that the foot print and diluteness really make wind/solar an impossibility. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 07, 2019, 01:33:27 pm
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.


Nice deflection, but what should I expect.  I have never seen you ever actually argue a point with real data and evidence.  You always fall into the, I'm right, your wrong and don't dare ask me to prove myself. 

As the left like to say, "you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts."  There are plenty of fact on what wind and solar can actually do.  We are not talking about some abstract subject here, or something that is so very complex it is hard to nail down anything, like macro economic theory. 

It's pretty simple.  This is how much solar and wind farms on average produce, this is how much land they take up, and you very easily figure out the shear amount of land needed to produce all the energy we need from wind/solar, which is an eye popping figure.  Compare that to nuclear, which is not so eye popping. 

You can also look at all of the admitted to work-arounds to get wind/solar to work, like the land needed and storage solutions, and compare that to the much smaller needs of other base line power productions.  Once again, the pluses are not on the wind/solar side. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: amolitor on August 07, 2019, 01:42:57 pm
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.

Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 07, 2019, 01:45:26 pm
 

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.

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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 07, 2019, 01:49:38 pm
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.)

It was done by Private Industry not government.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 07, 2019, 01:54:11 pm
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.

Once again, apples to oranges.  You cant do a controlled experiment on smoking.  Well, actually you could, but it would be highly immoral.  Looking at raw data on wind solar is much more straight forward. 

Furthermore, to suggest we cant actually determine any hard truths completely negates modern science and the scientific method.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Robert Roaldi on August 07, 2019, 01:54:58 pm

It was done by Private Industry not government.

Like Enron? Or AIG? Leyman Brothers?  :)

Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 07, 2019, 01:55:51 pm
Sure, but at what point do you stop and start trying something else.

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).

Quote
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.

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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: amolitor on August 07, 2019, 01:57:54 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 07, 2019, 02:02:13 pm
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.

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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 07, 2019, 02:04:28 pm
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.

Alright, alright, you got me. 

I'll agree some people, and, sometimes, many people, will choose to ignore the evidence that disagrees with their already determined "truths." 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 07, 2019, 02:10:37 pm
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

Sure, but without any government incentives, or at least not any that are larger then competing technologies.  And anyway, you Dutchmen have always been pretty good with windmills. 

If the newer installations work so well, hopefully you will be able to show us the technology and not be like Belgian style beers brewed outside of Belgium, always seeming to lack something.   
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on August 07, 2019, 03:32:45 pm
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.

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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 07, 2019, 03:42:02 pm
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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 07, 2019, 03:58:20 pm
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/ (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
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.

"Renewable natural gas (aka RNG or Biomethane) made from the biogases produced by decomposing organic waste can be used as a substitute for conventional CNG in any of the 800 CNG buses in the MTA’s 5,800 bus fleet. Better yet, the combination of this ultra-low-carbon fuel and new “near-zero” emission engine technology is a true climate and clean air winner, reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 70% or more and reducing health-threatening particulate matter (PM) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions by 90% compared to the cleanest diesel engines."

https://energy-vision.org/city-council-letter-rng-for-nyc-buses/ (https://energy-vision.org/city-council-letter-rng-for-nyc-buses/)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 07, 2019, 04:04:39 pm
Alright, alright, you got me. 

I'll agree some people, and, sometimes, many people, will choose to ignore the evidence that disagrees with their already determined "truths." 
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 07, 2019, 04:12:31 pm
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.

If there were no tax incentives and government rebates, this would not be that much of an issue for me.  If someone wanted to pay the full price for solar panels installed on their roof, even given the fact that it is 8 times more expensive then nuclear and fossil fuel power generation, that is on them. 

The problem I have is that a large part of the expense is being covered by the government, aka all of us.  All of the data points that this is a waste of money when nuclear is a clearly better option.  So that is the problem I have; why are we allowing them to waste money on technologies that don't work as well as others. 

Just goes back to Alan's point of the government picking winners and losers, and artificially inflating bad technologies. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 07, 2019, 04:18:07 pm
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.   

Subsidies and rebates the homeowner and solar companies get are paid by others that could be used elsewhere on other more important projects.  There are also upkeep costs of carbon based plants that require to be maintained and used when its dark.  Those costs are also passed on to others who use the grid. So basically, you're just transferring wealth from generally poorer people to the more wealthy who can afford to install solar or who live in stand-alone single-family homes.   Finally, if the overall reduction in CO2 is not enough to make a difference in climate change, then what's the point of spending all that money?  It would be better spent on cancer research. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 07, 2019, 04:37:57 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Peter McLennan on August 07, 2019, 05:47:38 pm
It was done by Private Industry not government.

I suggest you investigate the history of government/military involvement in the fossil fuel industry more closely.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: faberryman on August 07, 2019, 05:51:05 pm
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 07, 2019, 06:28:18 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 07, 2019, 06:38:42 pm
So, government intervention is good.
No, wait, government intervention is bad.
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. 

For the most part, free markets and private enterprise provide the best results with better products and lower costs.  The more government regulation, the higher the costs and the less innovation there is. For example, by giving credits for solar and wind, the government diminishes the incentive to try other things that might work better.  Business go where the money is.  If they are depending on credits and rebates to sell solar, then they'll sell solar rather then trying something more innovative. 

Like most things in life you need balance.  Often the government steps in too strongly when they should back off.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Peter McLennan on August 07, 2019, 08:33:15 pm
State your point about them if you have a point to make.

Really? Do I have to?

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?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Peter McLennan on August 07, 2019, 08:35:00 pm
For the most part, free markets and private enterprise provide the best results with better products and lower costs.

Please identify these free markets.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Peter McLennan on August 07, 2019, 08:35:39 pm
Nobody denies that climate changes. It's been changing for billions of years.

But NEVER so fast.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Peter McLennan on August 07, 2019, 08:38:30 pm
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)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 07, 2019, 09:29:45 pm
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)

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, ...

Aside from the extremely large geopolitical issues that would certainly arise and the history of instability of the region, at first glance it looks cautiously optimistic.  I also like the fact that the Sahara is not populated with that many animals, meaning less habitats will be destroyed along with plant life. 

However, I am very skeptical of those land masses you highlight being so small.  I have yet to see any calculations that show land masses even remotely as small as those by any physicists looking into wind/solar.  On top of this, you will still only get production 33% of the time, just like with other projects in other desserts, albeit maybe more concentrated.  Although the Wiki post does not directly say this, they do mention, indirectly, the sunlight is present only about 9 to 10 hours of the day, and that is about a 1/3 of the time. 

Additionally your Wki post does point out some pretty serious obstacles that would need to be overcome at the bottom. 

First, the cost of cabling over such large distances and maintaining them would be extremely expensive and could effectively offset any of the cost saving with building there. 

Second, Europe would just go from being political dependent on the Middle East to being so on North Africa.  This would not just be with the country that is producing the energy but as with every single country that the cables run through as well.  Anyone of them could hold Europe hostage by threatening to shut off the power.  This, obviously, would create a serious military issue as well.  On top of this, you would absolutely be dependent on these countries and could not easily change alliances since the cables would run through them and not be easily rerouted.  This is different then today since you can more easily change from which country you buy fuels from. 

Third, there is simply not enough water available in the region for construction, maintenance and cleaning, and cooling of the panels and turbines.  All of this water will need to be imported, adding the cost of the project.  Although there is some hope in developing cells where dirt and sand can not attached themselves to the surfaces, these are still in their infancy.  Additionally, dry cooling is an option but more expensive. 

Last, who will actually own the project?  Will Africans be okay with Europeans building this in their country and maintaining ownership and operation?  Or will Europeans be okay with footing the bill for a huge project like this only to let Africans to assume ownership and operations?  This would be quite the tricky treaty to work out.  Also, again due to the instability and frequent regime changes in that area, you would need to be ready to make unpredicted alterations to this treaty after it is in effect. 

I would also add, the instability of the region and the fact that, pretty much without warning, either the plant itself could be shut down or cables cut due to coups or wars would make this project very risky. 

This is not to say it cant work, just that there are a lot of issues to consider, many of which have nothing to due to energy production nor are inherently stable/reliable. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 07, 2019, 10:30:06 pm
Really? Do I have to?

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?
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 07, 2019, 10:36:06 pm
 
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."
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Peter McLennan on August 07, 2019, 10:43:21 pm
You have described what constitutes a free market, but haven't identified any that are actually free.

Feel free to do so.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 07, 2019, 10:44:20 pm
You have described what constitutes a free market, but haven't identified any that are actually free.

Feel free to do so.

America. The EU. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Peter McLennan on August 07, 2019, 10:47:52 pm
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, ....

"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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Peter McLennan on August 07, 2019, 10:48:50 pm
America. The EU.

You must be kidding.  Do you really think America is a free market?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 07, 2019, 10:50:09 pm
You must be kidding.  Do you really think America is a free market?
Yes.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Peter McLennan on August 07, 2019, 10:54:53 pm
Yes.

Wow.  You really have been drinking the Kool Aid.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 07, 2019, 10:57:55 pm
Wow.  You really have been drinking the Kool Aid.
Another personal attack?  You could do better than that, I'm sure. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 08, 2019, 06:21:35 am
"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.

Believe it or not, animals do live in deserts.  When you build a solar farm in a desert, the land needs to be cleared of animals and their habitats in order to construct the thing.  Clear cut is a general term used by environmentalists for destroying large areas of natural habitat and is used even is there are no trees that get removed. 

If Renewables Are So Great for the Environment, Why Do They Keep Destroying It? (https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/17/if-renewables-are-so-great-for-the-environment-why-do-they-keep-destroying-it/#15cc2e473a1c)

"A single California solar farm, Ivanpah, required the killing of hundreds of desert tortoises, the state’s threatened reptile, and annually kills six thousand birds by lighting them on fire."  That's about 16 to 17 birds a day.

"... the birds that the wind turbines and solar farms kill are large, rare, and threatened, like the Golden Eagle, Red-Tailed Hawk, and American Kestrel ... any birder will remind you that large birds of prey like raptors are slower to reproduce, and so the death of breeding adults has a far more devastating impact ..."

"But aren’t such environmental impacts common to all forms of energy production?  They aren’t. Because water, sunlight, and wind are so energy dilute, renewable technologies require orders of magnitude more land and materials to produce the same amount of energy as nonrenewables." 

"Ivanpah solar farm, for instance, requires an astonishing 450 times more land, per unit of energy produced, than Diablo Canyon, California’s last nuclear plant, which has had no impact on its neighboring fish population, and whose tidal pools are some of the most pristine on the West Coast."

"'Ivanpah is a bird sink — and an cautionary tale unfolding on public lands,' a representative from Audubon Society told The Los Angeles Times. 'It continues to operate as though there's an endless supply of birds to burn.'"

"The big environmental organizations appear unmoved. After acknowledging that the expansion of off-shore wind turbines in Germany 'could be grave and even lead to the extinction of individual species,' including the Harbor Porpoise, Friends of the Earth-Germany (BUND) said, cheerily, 'But things could also not be that bad after all. We simply do not know yet.'  Can you think of another instance where Friends of the Earth (FOE) — an organization that has, since 1970, fought to kill hydro-electric dams, nuclear power plants, and fossil fuel plants — has shrugged its shoulders over the extinction of a whale at the hands of a big energy project?"

Ivanpah is a desert by the way.  And it appears oooh so much that those proponents of wind and solar are such great stewards of the environment, doesn't it.   ::)

I think this quote absolutely defines most wind and solar advocates!   

"It is hard to understand green groups’ double standard except as a manifestation of a religious faith in renewables."

Study Sees Ecological Risks as Solar Expands (https://www.climatecentral.org/news/solar-study-sees-ecological-risks-19568)

Solar Farms Encroach on the Environment (https://www.govtech.com/fs/Solar-Farms-Encroach-on-the-Environment.html)

Solar Power Expansion Could Pose Ecological Risks (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/solar-power-expansion-could-pose-ecological-risks/)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Peter McLennan on August 08, 2019, 11:01:59 am
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.

ie, if you think markets are "free", then you aren't paying enough attention.

Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 08, 2019, 11:13:48 am
Another personal attack?  You could do better than that, I'm sure.

Alan, I have a similar observation as Peter.

To claim, in the middle of a Trade war with China, that the USA is a Free Market, seems is at odds with reality.
Blaming it on Kool Aid seems to offer a generous way out.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: kers on August 08, 2019, 11:34:26 am
I don't know the situation at the moment, but the product  and clothes made of cotton for instance also was?is targeted by protectionism of the USA. To protect its cotton farmers from cheaper import.
If you wanted to import a cotton trouser, the extra duty was depending on the % of cotton in the trouser that came from outside the US, if it only was stitched with cotton from outside the US duties were lower.
It created a big bureaucratic institute to regulate all that with thousand of employees.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 08, 2019, 11:52:57 am
Not a personal attack at all.  Sorry if you deemed it so. Merely a pragmatic observation.

ie, if you think markets are "free", then you aren't paying enough attention.


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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 08, 2019, 12:00:03 pm
A few more current ones. 

The environmental impacts of solar and wind energy (http://www.earth.com/news/environmental-impacts-solar-wind-energy/)

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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Peter McLennan on August 08, 2019, 01:26:10 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 08, 2019, 03:18:34 pm
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 ....

That’s right, you have not provided anything to counter my argument, well aside from a very risky geopolitical project that is very ambitious to say the least. 

Additionally, the 2nd link is pretty dense and I find it hard to believe everything in it has been debunked.  If it really, please provide a source explaining why.  If you can’t back up your statements, your criticism is meaningless. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: faberryman on August 08, 2019, 03:20:48 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 08, 2019, 03:22:45 pm
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.

There not real?   ???
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on August 08, 2019, 03:26:14 pm
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.

Right on, Fab. You can find "proof" for anything. It's called liars figuring. You even can find CHARTS to prove anything.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: faberryman on August 08, 2019, 03:30:56 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on August 08, 2019, 03:37:05 pm
Depends. If what you're looking at is an opinion, you're right. If what you're looking at supposedly is a "scientific" fact, uh uh. The least dependable finding is called a "scientific consensus."
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: faberryman on August 08, 2019, 03:40:43 pm
The least dependable finding is called a "scientific consensus."
There are plenty of things less dependable than a scientific consensus.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 08, 2019, 03:41:50 pm
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.   

We are not talking about macro economics here.  This is relatively easy data to look at.  How many birds does this farm kill per year?  It’s a pretty easy stat to measure.  Once again, we have these massive farms, let’s see how much power they actually produce.  Not hard to do and all meadurements shows they produce a lot less per acre then predicted, which was pretty low to begin with. 

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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: faberryman on August 08, 2019, 03:52:48 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on August 08, 2019, 03:52:54 pm
You can grow vegetables under and between solar panels, thus utilizing the land better.

Quote
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

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140409143942.htm

https://www.laserfocusworld.com/detectors-imaging/article/16571646/new-solar-panels-harvest-energy-and-also-allow-crops-to-grow-underneath
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on August 08, 2019, 03:58:13 pm
There are plenty of things less dependable than a scientific consensus.

Name one.

Maybe a post in The Coffee Corner?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: faberryman on August 08, 2019, 04:01:41 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Peter McLennan on August 08, 2019, 04:52:10 pm
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.
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 08, 2019, 06:28:42 pm
There are no "natural economic forces".  Economics is an invention of human beings.  Nature has its own rules.
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.
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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: faberryman on August 08, 2019, 06:41:02 pm
Gosh, I wish things were that simple.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 08, 2019, 06:48:29 pm
Gosh, I wish things were that simple.
Yup.  That simple.  Don't complicate it. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: faberryman on August 08, 2019, 06:50:58 pm
Yup.  That simple.  Don't complicate it.
So just ignore the complicated stuff?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 08, 2019, 06:54:00 pm
So just ignore the complicated stuff?
Stop griping and make a point.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: amolitor on August 08, 2019, 07:37:31 pm
Kodak's demise was considerably more complex than that, in particular. Mike over on ToP wrote a nice nuanced piece on the subject in 2016, so there's not a lot of excuse for the ongoing myth of "oh, they were just stupid and greedy" and yet, it continues.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on August 08, 2019, 07:48:56 pm
But then I am pretty skeptical of certainty anyway. Even a cursory study of epistemology should do that for anyone.

Exactly, Fab! Which is why there's no such thing as a "scientific consensus."
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 08, 2019, 08:56:40 pm
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.

So which facts should be tossed out and why? 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: amolitor on August 08, 2019, 09:40:55 pm
Yep, science is always changing. One year it's global cooling, the next year it's global warming.

One year antibiotics work, the next they don't. I'm pretty sure there's a groundswell of vaccines not working. Pretty soon gravity is going to fade away, because those physics geeks can't find gravity waves and never will.

Might as well just ignore it all and crack another beer!
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 08, 2019, 09:49:07 pm
Going back to the expense of green energy, here is another article. 

We Shouldn't Be Surprised Renewables Make Energy Expensive Since That's Always Been The Greens' Goal (https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/05/27/we-shouldnt-be-surprised-renewables-make-energy-expensive-since-thats-always-been-the-greens-goal/#28b9d0a04e6d)


"the output of solar panels declines one percent every year, for inherently physical reasons, and they as well as wind turbines are replaced roughly every two decades. "

"The underlying reason is physical. Solar and wind produce too much energy when we don’t need it and not enough when we do.  In 2013, a German economist predicted that the economic value of solar would drop by a whopping 50% when it became just 15% of electricity and that the value of wind would decline 40% once it rose to 30% of electricity.  Six years later, the evidence that solar and wind are increasing electricity prices in the real world, often without reducing emissions, is piling up."

"Some renewable energy advocates protest that more evidence is needed to prove that it is renewables and not some hidden factor that is making electricity expensive.  But there is a growing consensus among economists and independent analysts that solar and wind are indeed making electricity more expensive for two reasons: they are unreliable, thus requiring 100% back-up, and energy-dilute, thus requiring extensive land, transmission lines, and mining."

"the renewables-powered economy is circular, but not in a way that produces abundant energy for infinite recycling.  Rather, renewables-powered economies are circular in the sense of spiraling downward, as in a drain, or like a snake eating its tail until there is nothing left." 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: amolitor on August 08, 2019, 11:04:19 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Ray on August 09, 2019, 04:39:03 am
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.

I think you need to spend a bit more than 30 seconds to get an understanding of his position. I am at least impressed by his capacity to change his mind as developments and new evidence emerge.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Shellenberger

"In 2017, Shellenberger told The Australian: "Like most people, I started out pretty anti-nuclear. I changed my mind as I realised you can't power a modern economy on solar and wind... All they do is make the electricity system chaotic and provide greenwash for fossil fuels."

The term 'greenwash' refers to a form of spin in which green PR or green marketing is deceptively used to promote the perception that an organization's products, aims or policies are environmentally friendly.

Many years ago when 'climate change alarmism' became a major issue in the media, I didn't question the veracity of the claims by scientists such as James Lovelock, James Hansen, Michael Mann, and so on, as many people don't, or perhaps cannot because of their lack of a basic education in science.

However, when I began doing some serious searching on the internet, for more than 30 seconds  ;) , it gradually became clear that there was a political corruption of science taking place, which was attempting to  create a false degree of certainty about the harmful effects of anthropogenic CO2 emissions, whilst completely ignoring the beneficial effects of increased CO2 levels, such as increased plant growth.

I changed my mind as a result of new evidence that became available to me.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 09, 2019, 07:50:03 am
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.

I give you that, but it also shows that he started out in the solar and wind industry, leaving it after he realized it cant really work. 

But I think another important question is why does the left like to demonize nuclear so much and make it sound a lot worse then it actually is?  With the release of the HBO series Chernobyl, nearly every scientist who was there have become highly critical of the series, pretty much saying it is not a documentary at all.  It is a hyped-up drama just based on an actual event that misleads and just makes stuff up, even characters who never existed. 

And if you do a little more then 30 seconds of research, you'll see, for reasons that may not completely align with Shellenberger's opinions, that 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.  This is proven to me every time I see a positive article on wind and solar that leaves out all data from currently working wind/solar farms.  They read like fluff pieces without any actual evidence to back up the claims.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 09, 2019, 08:33:50 am
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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: jeremyrh on August 09, 2019, 09:17:12 am
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. 

What does this have to do with "the left" ?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: jeremyrh on August 09, 2019, 09:18:50 am

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

Hang on - I thought "the left" are anti-nuclear?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 09, 2019, 09:19:59 am
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

It's a damn shame too.  The greenies in the country and selling us a bill of false goods, and they hooked the government (at least the Dems) hook, line and sinker.  All the while, other countries will be the ones making the advancements and innovating, reaping in the profits once this wind and solar fad fades away. 

Alright, I have to apologize here.  I made a miscalculation with my figures.  I just realized that capacity in MW and total amount of MWH produced are not the same.  Working on the resolution. 

Let's try this again. 

The World's 10 Largest Wind Farms (https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-10-largest-wind-farms.html)

The only wind farm where the actual size is given, is the Alta Wind Energy Centre in Kern County, California.  It is 3200 acres in size with a capacity (not actual production mind you, just what it could produce during best conditions) of 1547 MW, or 1.547 GW per acre.  (This is where I made my error forgetting that GW and GWH are not the same.  One is the capacity and the other is the actual volume of production.)  The actual production yearly is 3179 GWH per year. 

In 2018, CA used 285,488 GWH.  In order to generate all of their power by wind, they would need (285,488/3179) x 3200 acres, or 287,373 acres.  This is 450 square miles, or about .3% of the state. 

Wow, I really screwed up that one!   

This figure is not something I now consider daunting, but still a pretty large area, and larger that what we need to allocate to energy production IMHO. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 09, 2019, 09:22:26 am
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)

The Progressive Nuclear Disconnect (https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/the-progressive-nuclear-disconnect/)

I can keep on going on and on and on; Google has an endless amount of responses on the left hating nuclear.  But I think this is enough. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: jeremyrh on August 09, 2019, 09:24:31 am
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" ?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 09, 2019, 09:31:04 am
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.  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 do 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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: jeremyrh on August 09, 2019, 09:36:50 am
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" ?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 09, 2019, 09:40:19 am
HBO="the left" ?

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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 09, 2019, 09:43:14 am
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.  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. 
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.

Of course, if the Democrats take over the government in 2020, all bets are off.  They'll probably subsidize wind and solar more than now making nuclear and fossil fuels even more expensive comparatively.   Get ready to see higher electric costs like Germany.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: jeremyrh on August 09, 2019, 09:55:16 am
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 09, 2019, 09:57:52 am
I actually LOL'ed reading those links. Too funny.

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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 09, 2019, 09:59:58 am
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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 09, 2019, 10:00:22 am
One more thing to add about wind farms. 

We are discovering that when you have a very large wind farm, the turbines in the front of the farm (receiving the wind first) will eventually create a wind shadow of lower air density causing the turbines in the rear not to spin as fast.  This is something no one predicted and makes wind farms even less practical. 

No mind you the wind farm needs to be fairly large and deep for this to occur, but considering the trend is to make them bigger and deeper, it is a problem that will be more of an issue. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 09, 2019, 10:04:45 am
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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 09, 2019, 10:19:01 am
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.

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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 09, 2019, 10:30:47 am
So I feel the need to state that my post in the previous page had a major error in the calculation where I mixed up capacity with total volume of electricity produced.  Capacity is in GW and volume is in GWH, and they are not the same measurement.  I edited the post with the correct figures. 

In honesty, I really screwed the pooch on this one, and the actual amount of land required (assuming all wind farms are as efficient as the Alta Wind Energy Centre) is considerably less, about 0.3% of the state. 

As some who has studied physics in school, I should have realized the difference between these two measurements more readily.  I'm a little rusty I guess. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 09, 2019, 10:41:38 am
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 09, 2019, 10:43:02 am
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
Sorry about the deaths.  But how many people will not die do to warmer winters? 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: jeremyrh on August 09, 2019, 10:45:10 am
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.

Yeah - let's hear it for all the positives of killing coral, starving polar bears etc etc etc
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on August 09, 2019, 10:46:18 am
It's getting hot on all continents, maybe relatively more in north.

Quote
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.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alaksa-warming/alaskas-hottest-month-portends-transformation-into-unfrozen-state-idUSKCN1UZ110
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 09, 2019, 10:47:02 am
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?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 09, 2019, 10:57:04 am
Yeah - let's hear it for all the positives of killing coral, starving polar bears etc etc etc
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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on August 09, 2019, 10:59:23 am
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.

Most likely, more birds get killed by pollution and changes in weather patterns than by the wind turbines.

Quote
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.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-alaksa-warming/alaskas-hottest-month-portends-transformation-into-unfrozen-state-idUSKCN1UZ110
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 09, 2019, 11:03:34 am
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 never said that I am not against fixing climate change, only that I don't think Wind/Solar will do it. 

Now I will admit that my egregious error in conflating capacity and volume produced a huge misconception in my mind of how many acres we would need of these things, I still feel that nuclear is a better alternative when it comes to protecting wild life. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: jeremyrh on August 09, 2019, 11:08:00 am
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.

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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 09, 2019, 11:12:36 am
Sorry about the deaths.  But how many people will not die do to warmer winters?

Hard to say, the numbers are far too low for reliable statistics to begin with.

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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 09, 2019, 11:18:53 am
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)


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.  :)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 09, 2019, 11:28:59 am
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.

Here's one from NASA and Nature.  A clarification correction.  The area of two times the US that I mention in an earlier post  is not in physical land area but equal to that much more greenery if there was that much more land area.  So imagine that many more trees in the world that could grow on two USA's.  That's what the additional CO2 hs done.  Why don;t we read about this in popular culture?  God forbid if the public gets the wrong impression and thinks we're not such a bad species after all. 

"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.

An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States."

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/ (https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 09, 2019, 11:33:10 am
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

I am seeing what you mean. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 09, 2019, 11:39:42 am
People don't die from air pollution.  It's not a disease.  Can you elaborate?  What makes it number 3?

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).

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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 09, 2019, 11:44:00 am
Hard to say, the numbers are far too low for reliable statistics to begin with.

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
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. :)  
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 09, 2019, 11:45:27 am
Changes in population shifts with climate change as they have since time immemorial.  While some species might be affected negatively, others are positively affected.

Humans are negatively affected, cockroaches less so.

Quote
Also, warmer weather has increased species diversity and population.


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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 09, 2019, 11:52:47 am
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).

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
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 09, 2019, 12:01:03 pm
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. 

Other species have also done better since the ice age although some species like the mammoth and saber tooth tiger have disappeared because of the warming.  If we have another ice age, we'll all do worse again.  Even Les in Canada will have to permanently  move to Florida. :)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: faberryman on August 09, 2019, 12:07:08 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 09, 2019, 12:14:14 pm
"Global Warming? An Israeli Astrophysicist Provides Alternative View That Is Not Easy To Reject"
https://www.forbes.com/sites/doronlevin/2019/08/09/global-warming-an-israeli-astrophysicist-provides-alternative-view-that-is-not-easy-to-reject/#2fa236b96945
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 09, 2019, 12:16:52 pm
Very confusing. You stated originally that cardiovascular and cancer are 1 and 2.

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.

Quote
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.

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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 09, 2019, 12:17:53 pm
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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 09, 2019, 12:20:13 pm
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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 09, 2019, 12:25:35 pm

You  made the claim.  You prove it.

So you are admitting that your denial is baseless?

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 09, 2019, 12:28:08 pm
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 makes one wonder if only the water in Flint is affected...
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 09, 2019, 01:06:05 pm
So you are admitting that your denial is baseless?

Cheers,
Bart
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.
The number of deaths related to air pollution in the United States shrank by 47 percent between 1990 and 2010, dropping from 135,000 per year to 71,000. 
https://e360.yale.edu/digest/us-air-pollution-deaths-nearly-halved-over-two-decades
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282929.php
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on August 09, 2019, 01:07:07 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 09, 2019, 01:10:49 pm
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.  :)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on August 09, 2019, 01:24:56 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 09, 2019, 01:50:54 pm
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? 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on August 09, 2019, 01:52:04 pm
Positively affected were mainly the pests - mosquitoes, ticks, japanese beetles, locusts, vegetable-eating moths/caterpillars. And Florida pythons.

When the wind drops and the endless summer sun bakes the ponds that dot the frozen tundra, some of the Arctic’s most ferocious predators emerge and form menacing blizzards that darken the horizon – and everyone’s mood.

“It is the talk of the town when the Arctic mosquitoes are out,” says Lauren Culler, a postdoctoral researcher who studies insects in Greenland for Dartmouth College’s Institute of Arctic Studies. “There aren’t a lot of animals for them to eat in the Arctic, so when they finally find one, they are ferocious. They are relentless. They do not stop. They just keep going after you.”

Climate change, it turns out, may make that even worse.

Quote
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.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/09/150915-Arctic-mosquito-warming-caribou-Greenland-climate-CO2/
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 09, 2019, 03:02:00 pm
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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on August 09, 2019, 03:09:11 pm
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.

The air quality in NYC must be too bad even for mosquitoes.  :(
Last month, I took my canoe about 150km north of Toronto, and mosquitoes seemed more numerous and more blood-thirsty than just a few years ago.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 09, 2019, 03:09:53 pm
This is an interesting infographic. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 09, 2019, 03:18:27 pm
This is an interesting infographic. 
How many people die with malaria every year because we stopped using DDT?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 09, 2019, 03:21:32 pm
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. 

It's always nice to be able to say that the national bird is still alive and well. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 09, 2019, 03:52:12 pm
Not sure, but banning it did save the Bald Eagle from extinction. 

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?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: JoeKitchen on August 09, 2019, 03:56:57 pm
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. 

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? 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: amolitor on August 09, 2019, 04:02:55 pm
The DDT/malaria thing is a favorite anti-science talking point, but it's absolute B.S.

The trouble with DDT and malaria is not, to first order, because DDT is bad for the environment, it's because it doesn't work. Mosquitos develop DDT resistance very fast, especially if you're spraying the stuff around indiscriminately. The more localized the use of DDT (or other insecticides) the slower the targets develop resistance.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 09, 2019, 07:49:43 pm
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. 

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? 

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. 

"In 1945, DDT was made available to farmers as an agricultural insecticide[5] and played a role in the final (for a time) elimination of malaria in Europe and North America.[9][31][32]

In 1955, the World Health Organization commenced a program to eradicate malaria in countries with low to moderate transmission rates worldwide, relying largely on DDT for mosquito control and rapid diagnosis and treatment to reduce transmission.[33] The program eliminated the disease in "North America, Europe, the former Soviet Union",[34] and in "Taiwan, much of the Caribbean, the Balkans, parts of northern Africa, the northern region of Australia, and a large swath of the South Pacific"[35] and dramatically reduced mortality in Sri Lanka and India.[36]

However, failure to sustain the program, increasing mosquito tolerance to DDT, and increasing parasite tolerance led to a resurgence. In many areas early successes partially or completely reversed, and in some cases rates of transmission increased.[37] The program succeeded in eliminating malaria only in areas with "high socio-economic status, well-organized healthcare systems, and relatively less intensive or seasonal malaria transmission".[34]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT)
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/dehradun/India-3rd-in-no-of-malaria-deaths-WHO/articleshow/49017287.cms?from=mdr (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/dehradun/India-3rd-in-no-of-malaria-deaths-WHO/articleshow/49017287.cms?from=mdr)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: jeremyrh on August 10, 2019, 07:08:42 am

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/ (https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/)


That paper doesn't say what you try to make it say.

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.”
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on August 10, 2019, 07:24:15 am
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.  :)

Unfortunately, the warm weather and air pollution has caused an explosion of bark beetles, among other pests.
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)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 10, 2019, 07:44:36 am
That paper doesn't say what you try to make it say.

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]
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 10, 2019, 08:07:14 am
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]

Here's an update.  I did some checking and found this article. It seems a lot of assumed increase due to CO2 was actually due to more planting in India and China. "Overall, much of the greening in China and India comes from the "intensive" cultivation of crops, NASA found. This accounts for 32 percent of the greening in China and 82 percent in India."

It  also adds, ""Production of grains, vegetables, fruits and more have increased by 35 to 40 percent since 2000," NASA said."

...and "Zooming out, about one-third Earth's vegetated lands experienced greening, including a conspicuous portion of North America stretching from southern Mexico to high into the boreal forests of Canada.

Vast swaths of the Arctic tundra are greening too as the Arctic continues its historically unprecedented warming trend — which is also thawing the carbon-saturated ground (permafrost) and melting massive ice sheets. "

So the original report of 2016 was somewhat wrong assigning all the growth to CO2.  It would be refreshing if climatologist would be so open and honest as well.  When they put their thumb on the scale, it encourages disbelief and is counter productive. 

https://mashable.com/article/greening-china-india-nasa/ (https://mashable.com/article/greening-china-india-nasa/)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 10, 2019, 08:11:46 am
Unfortunately, the warm weather and air pollution has caused an explosion of bark beetles, among other pests.
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)

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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 10, 2019, 08:21:01 am
Interesting that we don't similarly hear that CO2 is a driver of warming based on models.

The physical property of CO2 acting as a greenhouse gas has been known since 1896 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius) and those measurable properties have not changed.

(https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_full_record.png)

Historical records (obviously) agree with physics. Most of the modeling required, is focusing on assumptions of how slow Humans will reduce their emissions, or destroy forrests, or change the way they grow enough food to feed the world ...

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on August 10, 2019, 08:22:53 am
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.

Not only in Germany. Also in Canada.

Quote
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.

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-resources/forests-forestry/wildland-fires-insects-disturban/top-forest-insects-diseases-cana/mountain-pine-beetle/13381
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 10, 2019, 08:28:59 am
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.    Or, like the article about greening, only part has to do with CO2 and the rest due to some other reasons.  The Israeli scientist thinks it has to do with change in sun's output, something I always favored. 

Things in nature are either increasing, decreasing, or staying the same.  So it's easy to point to two things going the same way and say one causes the other.  But that's just coincidence.  It happens all the time. It never proves causality.  It's not proof.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 10, 2019, 08:30:40 am
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.

Your own linked article says something else:
Quote
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.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 10, 2019, 08:43:41 am
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.

Besides that it's updated, apparently you have not seen it often enough for it to register, including this:
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/

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 10, 2019, 08:45:50 am
Not only in Germany. Also in Canada.

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)
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.  :)

Here's a couple of shots I tool in the Adirondacks in New York State in Lake Algonquin in Wells, NY.  The canoeing and kayaking were great.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/6177/6176454171_a692ae2219_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/apMWDa)Dock (https://flic.kr/p/apMWDa) by Alan Klein (https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/), on Flickr

(https://live.staticflickr.com/6179/6176454521_1691dc659d_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/apMWKc)Canoe View (https://flic.kr/p/apMWKc) by Alan Klein (https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/), on Flickr

https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/6176981704/in/album-72157627614472967/ (https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/6176981704/in/album-72157627614472967/)


[url=https://flic.kr/p/apQDsy](https://live.staticflickr.com/6162/6176981704_972fd34494_b.jpg) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/6176981704/in/album-72157627614472967/)Lake Algonquin, NY (https://flic.kr/p/apQDsy) by Alan Klein (https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/), on Flickr[/url]
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 10, 2019, 08:49:09 am
Your own linked article says something else:
Cheers,
Bart

Planting plays a bigger role in China and India, not the rest of the world where extra greening is occurring naturally. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on August 10, 2019, 08:56:32 am
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.  :)

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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 10, 2019, 09:01:55 am
Besides that it's updated, apparently you have not seen it often enough for it to register, including this:
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.  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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 10, 2019, 09:16:13 am
The IPCC is biased.  By now that's obvious.

How? Any proof for that fake 'news'?

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 10, 2019, 09:17:23 am
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.

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?

Here's another shot taken while on that canoe.  You can see the lilies to the right of the canoe in the 2nd color shot above. All these shots were taken with a little 4mb Canon Powershot S410 P&S.  We forget how great those little cameras were back them. 
(https://live.staticflickr.com/6179/6151923142_3143698288_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/anCdqo)Water Lilies (https://flic.kr/p/anCdqo) by Alan Klein (https://www.flickr.com/photos/alanklein2000/), on Flickr
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 10, 2019, 09:19:24 am
How? Any proof for that fake 'news'?

Cheers,
Bart
They have an agenda.    That's obvious to any discerning person. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: faberryman on August 10, 2019, 09:20:19 am
They have an agenda.    That's obvious to any discerning person.
You have an agenda. That's obvious to any discerning person.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 10, 2019, 09:22:42 am
You have an agenda. That's obvious to any discerning person.
Everyone here has an agenda. :)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 10, 2019, 09:38:15 am
You have an agenda. That's obvious to any discerning person.

It's obvious, even to an undiscerning person.  :(
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 10, 2019, 09:40:51 am
Well, discerning people know that Nikon is better than Canon.
Oh wait.  That's another thread. :)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: degrub on August 10, 2019, 11:13:54 am
i discern that it is lunch / dinner time.  :D
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on August 10, 2019, 11:16:05 am
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?


A lot depends on a canoe. The typical recreational canoes are relatively short and are more difficult to paddle in a straight line. Whitewater canoes are more maneuverable in rapids and can handle also large waves. Longer lakewater canoes hold their course better. My flatwater canoe is a 17'6'' long Kevlar Swift Winisk which is a wonderful touring canoe. It's light, stable, easy to paddle, and due to its asymmetric design, it's also faster than most other canoes.

I have lots of pictures from my canoeing trips. Here are some shots with and without the canoe in the lake country a few hours north of Toronto. And one with two hot chicks on a whitewater river.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 10, 2019, 11:25:37 am
Nice shots.  Nice boat.  What do you mean asymmetric?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on August 10, 2019, 11:45:02 am
Thank you Alan.
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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: jeremyrh on August 10, 2019, 01:17:55 pm
The IPCC is biased.  By now that's obvious.

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.

Quote
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.

As per your previous posting, this is likely a temporary effect.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on August 10, 2019, 01:34:28 pm
We really ought to rename "The Coffee Corner" to "The Silly Corner."
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 10, 2019, 01:39:18 pm
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"..
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 10, 2019, 01:59:50 pm
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 ???

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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 10, 2019, 02:15:24 pm
"So-called"? Have you checked their credentials, and the process to produce such a report ???

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
They're all in  the same choir.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 10, 2019, 02:18:36 pm
Thank you Alan.
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: faberryman on August 10, 2019, 03:02:49 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: jeremyrh on August 10, 2019, 03:35:57 pm
They're all in  the same choir.

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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on August 10, 2019, 04:50:19 pm
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.

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.
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.
 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on August 10, 2019, 05:01:44 pm
Paddling a canoe around a lake is not rocket science.

That's what one would think.
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: faberryman on August 10, 2019, 05:04:12 pm
That's what one would think.
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.
I recognize that there is a bell curve in intelligence.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 10, 2019, 05:33:04 pm
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.
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.
 
Next time i'l make my wife join me and have her row. 😀
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 10, 2019, 05:48:34 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 10, 2019, 09:38:06 pm
Here's an article to help people put their money where their mouth is. :)
https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/08/10/how-to-invest-in-renewable-energy-stocks.aspx (https://www.fool.com/investing/2019/08/10/how-to-invest-in-renewable-energy-stocks.aspx)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Ray on August 12, 2019, 02:59:04 am
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!  ;)

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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 12, 2019, 08:32:19 am
Good point!  ;)

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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 12, 2019, 09:03:46 am
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).

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 (organized 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, later replaced by steam engines (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.

The oldest (1845) steam-engine powered pumping station, "De Leeghwater", is still in occasional (600 hours a year) use today, as a backup station. In 1912 the steam engine was replaced by diesel engines. The D.F. Wouda pumping station near Lemmer (1920), with a flow of 4 million litres of water per minute, is the largest working steam pumping station in the world and is on the Unesco World Heritage List, and is still in (occasional) use.

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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 12, 2019, 09:39:28 am
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).

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
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. :)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Ray on August 12, 2019, 10:02:30 am
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.

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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 12, 2019, 11:22:10 am
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.

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.

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. 

I'm not in a flood zone, considered X zone for "everywhere else".  The insurance is about the same price for everyone ($500/annually roughly) with minor differences depending on the size/type house.  There are also limit for flood damage. I think is $100K for contents and $250K for the home.  Not very much.  Of course if your home floats away and it costs more to replace, you're out of luck.  These are the max limits with government insurance.  I suppose you could find independent insurance companies that provide more insurance for more expensive homes. 

I haven't read through all the caveats yet.  One that was interesting is that they don't consider it a flood unless at least two homes flooded.  So I guess if none of my neighbors suffered damage, then I'm out of luck.  Who knows what other escape clauses the insurance companies write for themselves.  :)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Peter McLennan on August 12, 2019, 01:25:48 pm
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? 

Alan, try this link:  Especially the maps therein.  The Mountain Pine Beetle and the Spruce Budworm have in the last two decades devastated central British Columbia forests.  The cause?  Warm winters.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=2313&bih=1225&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=Up9RXaXjM4uJ0wL2pJeAAw&q=forest+insect+damage+british+columbia&oq=forest+insect+damage+british+columbia&gs_l=img.12...0.0..105752...0.0..0.0.0.......0......gws-wiz-img.iKJCSsnmUgg&ved=0ahUKEwil1Neq6_3jAhWLxFQKHXbSBTAQ4dUDCAY


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

Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Ray on August 13, 2019, 12:55:40 am

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

Interesting article, but puzzling. It's been known for years that modern agricultural practices tend to reduce the nutrient and vitamin content of food crops in general, compared with preindustrial times when farming was more natural and organic with less use of growth-enhancing fertilizers such as Nitrogen.

CO2 is like a hidden fertilizer. It's always there, but increases so slowly from year to year that its effect would be impossible to detect in a single growing season, outside of an artificial environment of significantly enhanced CO2 levels, such as in a greenhouse or a FACE experiment.

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.

One major issue I have with experiments that show that enhanced CO2 levels reduce the protein, mineral and vitamin content of major food crops such as rice, is that these foods are already being stripped of much of their nutritional value through processing, particularly the processing of brown whole grain rice into nice, clean and attractive white rice, which most people eat, even in desperately poor countries.

From the following site http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=foodspice&dbid=128

"The complete milling and polishing that converts brown rice into white rice destroys 67% of the vitamin B3, 80% of the vitamin B1, 90% of the vitamin B6, half of the manganese, half of the phosphorus, 60% of the iron, and all of the dietary fiber and essential fatty acids. Fully milled and polished white rice is required (by law in the US) to be "enriched" with vitamins B1, B3 and iron."

In other words, poor people who are undernourished should be encouraged to change their diet from white rice to whole-grain brown rice. The solution is education, not reducing CO2 levels.

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).

Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on August 13, 2019, 01:13:42 am
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.

Ray, you raise a very valid point about the nutritional values of the same crop grown under different conditions.

I always wanted to know the nutritional breakdown of the common vegetables, such as tomatoes, potatoes, cucumbers and such. The store bought variety vs home grown or purchased from a local farmer. Even tomatoes grown in a greenhouse vs field tomatoes.

I suspect that also most books stating the typical nutritional values are now drastically outdated, quoting the 20-year old test results while the produce in the stores today is much lower in most nutrients. While I can tell with closed eyes the difference between my own tomatoes and the store bought variety, it's close to impossible to get the actual results and compare these differences.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on August 13, 2019, 08:06:47 am
Ray and I had a long debate about the impact on CO2 and crop yield on the old climate change thread and anyone interested can go back and read the discussion.  I will only reiterate the key issue here.  With regard to the nutritional quality of seeds, one wants varieties that spend more energy into creating seed rather than biomass growth.  Biomass is pretty much non-nutritional other than for ruminants who can metabolize cellulose.  Plant breeders seek to optimize genetic factors that maximize seed production.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on August 13, 2019, 11:13:20 am
Bananas disappearing due to a killer fungus! Maybe not due to the warming climate, but nevertheless a big problem.
First identified in Taiwan thirty years ago,then found in the Middle East and Africa in 2013, and now it has arrived to South America.

Quote
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.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/08/banana-fungus-latin-america-threatening-future/
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on August 13, 2019, 11:15:33 am
Oh dear. We'll all have to switch to watermelon.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on August 13, 2019, 11:25:42 am
Oh dear. We'll all have to switch to watermelon.

America is a free country. You can eat anything you like.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on August 13, 2019, 11:40:21 am
Careful, Les. If you say things like that the "me too"ers will be on your case.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on August 13, 2019, 11:48:41 am
Careful, Les. If you say things like that the "me too"ers will be on your case.

Good point, Russ.
I'd better stick to regular news. All stations here are now reporting about the recently announced Jimmy Kimmel's candidacy to run for mayor's office in Dildo, Newfoundland.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/entertainment/jimmy-kimmel-responds-to-premier-ball-s-official-invite-to-dildo-n-l-1.4545936
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on August 13, 2019, 11:59:08 am
Well, I certainly hope Jimmy does a good job in Dildo. Their women will appreciate it.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on August 14, 2019, 09:27:35 pm
A new study finds that microplastics are being carried around the planet in atmospheric winds, and that we’re breathing them in.

Quote
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."

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/08/microplastics-found-in-arctic-snow/
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on August 19, 2019, 04:12:17 am
Heavy storm with a tornado in Hessen in central Germany caused serious problems in the rush hour. Many persons were injured, trees uprooted, highways closed for days.

Quote
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.

I used to live in that area and visited it just  a few months ago. AFAIK, this is the first time that they experienced a tornado.

https://www.fr.de/rhein-main/sturm-ueber-hessen-schwere-schaeden-verletzte-tornado-zr-12924225.html?fbclid=IwAR3C3RjAt5pnqrudiANdoaLn-yNZ5wb6VuNXG0ugo1GBxwrPGoDJw95fLeE  (in German)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 20, 2019, 01:50:06 pm
They're picking on the royals again.  So what if their carbon emissions doubled in the last year.  They say they are interested in climate change.  And they make such a nice couple. Don't they realize they're grandchildren will suffer 50 years from now?  Anyway, my (American)wife thinks they're adorable. :)

"Elton John tries and fails to defend Prince Harry on climate change"
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/elton-john-tries-and-fails-to-defend-prince-harry-on-climate-change (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/elton-john-tries-and-fails-to-defend-prince-harry-on-climate-change)


"The Duke and Duchess of Sussex are being criticized in the British media for their extensive use of private jets for vacations, including flying on Elton John's private jet to Nice, France, despite their support for environmental charities."[/font][/size]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WOKac4ZBoY (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WOKac4ZBoY)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 20, 2019, 01:56:13 pm
A new study finds that microplastics are being carried around the planet in atmospheric winds, and that we’re breathing them in.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/08/microplastics-found-in-arctic-snow/

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?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 20, 2019, 02:00:27 pm
... this is the first time that they experienced a tornado...

What did they think all those wind turbines would do?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: faberryman on August 20, 2019, 02:05:51 pm
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?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on August 20, 2019, 02:17:41 pm
What did they think all those wind turbines would do?

Actually, the construction of wind turbines there slowed down, but the summer temperatures and the Greens are on the rise.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/28/europe-greens-on-fire-and-not-just-because-of-sweltering-heat
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 20, 2019, 02:20:46 pm
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.  :)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: faberryman on August 20, 2019, 03:17:01 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 20, 2019, 05:12:19 pm
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. :)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 21, 2019, 09:44:21 am
Wrong thread.  Sorry.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on August 23, 2019, 02:00:32 am
At least four people died and more than 100 were injured in lightning strikes during a sudden thunderstorm in Tatra Mountains in Poland. A fifth person was killed in neighbouring Slovakia.

Quote
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."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-49439619
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on August 27, 2019, 06:14:18 am
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).

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.

Quote
“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.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5489393/frequency-of-severe-air-turbulence-could-triple-due-to-climate-change/
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 27, 2019, 07:15:10 am
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 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). 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, insecticides and additional fertilizer, and if a runoff is caused by heavy rainfall, the aquatic life may also suffer from algae blooms in a competition for oxygen.

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.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on August 27, 2019, 07:21:28 am
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.

Cheers,
Bart
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)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 27, 2019, 08:29:50 am
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on August 27, 2019, 09:59:39 am
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. 

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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 27, 2019, 10:15:52 am
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. 

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.
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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on August 27, 2019, 10:48:55 am
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/
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 27, 2019, 11:31:35 am
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? 

"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."
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on August 27, 2019, 01:12:02 pm
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."

I am allergic to bugs. I can't stand when they bite me, and I won't eat them either.
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.
   
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on August 27, 2019, 02:25:26 pm
Does anyone farm bugs? 

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.

Jeremy
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 27, 2019, 03:57:22 pm
I am allergic to bugs. I can't stand when they bite me, and I won't eat them either.
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.
   
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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 27, 2019, 04:00:47 pm
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).

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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on August 27, 2019, 04:22:52 pm
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?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 27, 2019, 04:39:10 pm
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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Ray on August 28, 2019, 02:07:46 am
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.

I think you've misunderstood the research. Increased CO2 levels result in increased growth, in the same type of soil with the same quantities of nutrients and the same amount of water.

Under water-stressed conditions, the increased plant growth due to elevated CO2 levels, is even greater, because of the lower evaporation that takes place as a result of the smaller stomata (pores) on the plants' leaves.

However, it is true that growing crops without returning to the soil all the crop residue and nutrients that are removed when the crop is harvested, will gradually result in less nutritious food.

This is one of the failings of modern agriculture where the soils are constantly tilled and the crop residue removed and used for other purposes. The soils are being gradually depleted of their carbon content, biodiversity and micro-nutrients. The farmers will tend to add only the particular fertilizers that enhance growth, which are mainly Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium. The increased CO2 has no noticeable effect in the open field, because it's increasing at a rate of only one or two parts per million, per year. It's out of sight and out of mind, but its effect on increasing plant growth, although subtle on an annual basis, is continuous and adds up over the years.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/crop-residues

"Crop residues are valuable assets for sustainable management in cropping systems. Residues offer the following: (1) a physical barrier against soil erosion (wind or water), (2) a way to manage GHG emissions, (3) retention of soil moisture at the soil surface; (4) prevention of germination of weeds, (5) snow catchment, and (6) a source of photosynthesized carbon and SOM (soil organic matter). Therefore, effective distribution of crop residues and correct incorporation of them can greatly benefit not only soil biological activities but also can improve soil structure, water infiltration, and workability of the soil and protect it from soil erosion and compaction."

Quote
Both are not guaranteed as a result of climate change (droughts vs increased precipitation).

Climate is always changing. Didn't you know that, Bart?  ;) There are no guarantees regarding climate or weather. A modestly warming climate, in conjunction with a modest increase in precipitation and a modest increase in CO2 levels sounds fine to me. Whether or not we have the practical commonsense to exploit such benefits, is another issue.

Quote
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.

There's an element of truth there; just as climate change alarmists cherry-pick the negative effects and deliberately ignore or downplay the more positive effects.

However, to be precise with our terminology, I've never met an actual 'Climate Change Denier', but I have met many 'Climate Change Alarmists', and it does seem a very obvious fact that the process of creating alarm about CO2 emissions will be much more successful if the positive effects are ignored or downplayed.

Quote
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.

I get a sense that many of the scientists expressing alarm about climate change, such as Michael Mann, actually do live in controlled laboratories or offices, working on their computer models, trying to predict the future climate, and really are sheltered from the outside world. I suspect many of them also tend to suffer from OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder).   :(

People who are less sheltered from the outside world, such as farmers, tend to be far more skeptical about the effect of human emissions of greenhouse gases on the climate. Also, the scientists in disciplines which involve more connection to the outside world, such as Meteorology and Geology, tend to express more skepticism about the significance of CO2 in the current warming, presumably because the Meteorologists are more aware of the chaotic and unpredictable nature of weather and climate, and the Geologists are more aware of the history of the planet, its continually changing climate, and previous warm periods that appear to have preceded rises in atmospheric CO2 levels.

Quote
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.

If new research were to discover that 200 years ago, or 500 or 1,000 years ago, when CO2 levels were much lower, there had been an even hotter heatwave in your part of the world, would you then change your position on the role of CO2 in the current warm period?  ;)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Ray on August 28, 2019, 03:07:44 am
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. 

Excellent example of 'downplaying the positives and exaggerating the negatives', Alan.  ;D

The type of plants that benefit from elevated levels of CO2 are known as C3, which are the vast majority of plants. The C4 plants can use CO2 more efficiently in the photosynthesis process, so they don't respond to elevated CO2 levels as much as the C3 plants.

However, as the following article explains, whilst the total number of C4 plant species, globally, is very small, compared with C3 plants, the proportion of C4 weeds is much higher. Some of the worst weeds are of the C4 type.

Therefore, as CO2 levels rise, the C3 crops should become more competitive than the C4 weeds, even excluding the continuing technological progress in addressing weed control.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/weed-science/article/composite-list-of-c4-weeds/0028B100C8534460E75A9F0340AFE304

"C4 plants account for a small fraction of the total number of plant species (fewer than 1000 out of 250 000). A larger proportion of the world's weed species possess C4 physiology. There are 2000 species in 500 genera and 125 families of flowering plants listed in the WSSA composite list of weeds. of that number, 146 species in 53 genera and 10 families exhibit the C4 syndrome. This, as a percentage, is 17-fold greater than the percentage of C4 plants in the total world plant population. In this report, we have listed the C4 -weed species and provide specific information concerning various aspects of their Kranz anatomy and C4 physiology."

Quote
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)

The argument that increased CO2 levels will lead to increased plant growth is far more scientifically sound than the argument that increased CO2 levels will have a harmful effect on the climate and the biodiversity of the planet.

Crop yield can be affected by many issues which are not necessarily related to any changes in CO2 levels. If it were true that the rise in CO2 levels that has already taken place in recent decades, had increased the frequency and intensity of storms, floods and droughts, then that would have a counteractive effect on the increased crop yield. However, there is no reliable evidence that such extreme weather events have increased, on a global scale, since 1950. The IPCC uses the term 'low confidence' due to lack of evidence, to describe any increase in such events, globally. In other words, they don't know.

Heat waves have been increasing because the climate is warming, and that could certainly affect crop yield. On the other hand, the net effect of a slightly warmer climate in most regions, in conjunction with higher precipitation, could more than offset the reduced crop yield due to the occasional heat wave.

Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 28, 2019, 09:51:54 am
Ray, I need you to take a look at my lawn and shrubs.    :)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Ray on August 28, 2019, 11:28:45 am
Ray, I need you to take a look at my lawn and shrubs.    :)

I'm sure it's nicer than my garden.  ;)

Many parts of Australia are currently experiencing drought conditions. When the rains eventually come, I expect there will be flooding in many places due to an insufficient number of flood-mitigation dams, which is an ongoing problem that certainly isn't going to be fixed by reducing CO2 emissions.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 28, 2019, 06:13:03 pm
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/
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Ray on August 29, 2019, 12:48:22 am
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/

The 'lungs of the world' analogy is another example of the tendency to exaggerate in order to create alarm for the purpose of getting political action.

My understanding is that both plants and animals need oxygen, but plants also need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis whereas animals and humans exhale CO2 as a waste product. The air we breathe in contains about 0.04% CO2, when we're outside in the natural environment, but the air we breathe out contains about 4% CO2 which is about 100 times as much as we breathed in, or 40,000 parts per million.

However, plants do release more oxygen than they take in, and also convert into oxygen all the CO2 that they take in.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on August 29, 2019, 07:45:17 am
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on August 29, 2019, 08:12:40 am
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

Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 29, 2019, 10:07:24 am
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on August 29, 2019, 10:25:22 am
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

This year, hurricanes J and T will be womanly - Ms Jenny and Ms Tanya. Hopefully, they won't become as nasty and unpredictable as Mr. T and Mr. J.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on August 29, 2019, 10:28:30 am
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!
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 29, 2019, 10:54:09 am
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!

You unfortunately got hit similarly last year and 10 people died.  It seems it's more normal than you believe.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Ray on August 29, 2019, 10:56:38 am
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?  ;)

The following article explains the process.

https://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=2860

"Plants use energy from the sun to turn CO2 (carbon dioxide) and H2O (water) into sugar (C6H12O6) with oxygen (O2) left over. This is photosynthesis.

6CO2 + 6H2O gives C6H12O6 + 6O2

Count up the number of carbon atoms on each side of the arrow. If you have six on one side, you need six on the other. Now count the hydrogen atoms. (6 X 2) on one side and 12 on the other. How many oxygen atoms are on the left side?
(6 X 2) + (6 X 1) = ___. Now how many oxygen atoms are in the glucose? 6.

So you have oxygen atoms left over. That is where the O2 comes from. It is the left over material from making sugar. Just like when you make something, the scraps you cut off do not disappear. The plant breathes out the oxygen, which is good for all of us animals because we need oxygen, as you know."
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 29, 2019, 11:08:41 am
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?  ;)

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".


Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on August 29, 2019, 12:43:47 pm
You unfortunately got hit similarly last year and 10 people died.  It seems it's more normal than you believe.

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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 29, 2019, 02:05:50 pm
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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on August 29, 2019, 02:55:23 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 29, 2019, 03:29:54 pm
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 hope that everything will go as well as possible, given the circumstances. But oh, the circumstances (in both situations).
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 29, 2019, 04:42:23 pm
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, 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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 29, 2019, 04:46:09 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 29, 2019, 05:13:23 pm
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. :)

In any case, Rob's complained it only happened once, this year.  I was just pointing out that memories fade, even recent memories.   ;)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on August 29, 2019, 05:17:48 pm
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

Hail has damaged every car I have owned in Spain; it's nothing new and it's not the problem: the problem is the change in the timetable of these events. Can't you understand the difference that signifies?

Local flooding: our block was flooded to a depth of 62 cms, twice, back in the 80s. Fortunately, the architects understood that possibility, and the property is built higher than ground level, and so we were not troubled inside. But guess what: the flooding had nothing to do with the usual, expected winter rains: it had everything to do with the local, 100 yards away, torrente that had been neglected by the town hall and allowed to fill up with rubbish, thus defeating the thing's natural function as historical drain down to the sea.

And hail is a part of cooling and warming; that's what forms it in the first place. Warming sends it up into the sky as vapour and cooling converts it into ice. Did you imagine that polar warming would only affect the poles? That change in temperature affects everything that water and air circulation reaches.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on August 29, 2019, 05:22:32 pm
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.   ;)

Alan, congratulations on being given your own, personal edition of LuLa. I have to make do with the standard issue which obviously is far different to the one you receive.

Rob
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 29, 2019, 05:53:10 pm
Apparently, storms have been occurring for a long time by Ibiza in the Balearic Sea., at least before 1980 the date of this mariner's forecasting aid.  Maybe Rob wasn't there to witness them so assumes the weather has always been pleasant there.  I'm still looking for the mariner's aid that Odysseus used as that goes back more than 500 years long before the industrial revolution.  Unfortunately, Google hasn't come up with anything so far.

Handbook for Forecasters in the Mediterranean, Part 2
REGIONAL FORECASTING AIDS
FOR THE MEDITERRANEAN BASIN
= __
L. R. Brody and LCDR M. J. R. Nestor, RN
Naval Environmental Prediction Research Facility
r'-'",-,
DECEMBER 1980

(from page I-20)

CYCLONIC ACTIVITY, BALEARIC SEA, RULE 27
27. Surface cyclones generally weaken while traversing the Iberian
Peninsula. These lows deepen rapidly, however, when they reach the east coast
of Spain.
CYCLONIC ACTIVITY, MISCELLANEOUS, RULES 2,. 29
28. In the Mediterranean region it is important to track the remnants of
old cold fronts closely. Several cases have been documented in which cyclogenesis originated along one of these fronts -- even after the cloudiness
associated with these fronts had disappeared -- when an upper-level, short-wave
trough (SD minimum) has approached from the west.
29. Periods of gale force norLheasterly winds (speeds up to 40 kt) occur
off the east coast of Spain as far as Ibiza when a migrating low moves over
souther.1 Spain into the area west of the Greenwich Meridian.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 29, 2019, 05:53:36 pm
Here's the link
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a102635.pdf
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Ray on August 29, 2019, 09:31:27 pm
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".


Maybe so, but look at the number of oxygen atoms in the sugar formula: 6CO2 + 6H2O = C6 H12 O6 (sugar) + 6O2 (waste)

The sugar molecule 'numerically' contains all the hydrogen atoms and all the oxygen atoms that comprise the six water molecules used, plus all the carbon in the six CO2 molecules used. The amount of surplus oxygen exactly matches the number of oxygen molecules in the six CO2 molecules, that is, six O2.

Also, the number of oxygen atoms that are emitted as waste, exceeds the number of oxygen atoms in the water used to make a sugar molecule, so therefore, regardless of isotope measurements, at least half of the waste oxygen must come from the CO2.

In other words, the total amount of waste oxygen that is released in this process, amounts to twice the amount of oxygen atoms in the water molecules that comprise the sugar molecule.

Nevertheless, it would be interesting to see an isotope study which showed that the waste oxygen released was all of the oxygen in the water, plus only half of the oxygen in the Carbon dioxide.

Have I successfully debunked Alan Goldhammer's claim?  ;D
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Ray on August 29, 2019, 10:27:32 pm
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.

You are missing the most fundamental point about climate, Rob. It's always changing and always has, for reasons that are very complex and not fully understood.

Over any period, in any particular region, the average of weather events (climate) will change to some degree. Some regions will get hotter and drier, other regions will get hotter and wetter. Some regions will get colder and some regions will experience more frequent storms. Some regions will experience devastating droughts that have never been as bad in the past 40 years, and other regions will experience fairly benign and consistent weather.

However, if you look at the historical records, if you can find them, you will discover that most of the extreme weather events that have occurred in recent decades are not unprecedented, although it's to be expected that sometimes an extreme weather event in a particular region might be the worst since reasonably accurate measurements were taken, say the past 150 years.

If you go back further than 150 years, you have to rely upon proxy records and media reports which show that devastating changes in weather patterns, such as long periods of droughts, excessive heat waves, and extremely cold periods which caused the river Thames to freeze over in winter, have occurred in the past.

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?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on August 29, 2019, 11:34:07 pm
Global warming or warming in certain geographical areas causes also more allergies. CBC reported tonight on the increased pollen levels which is a new problem not limited only to Canada.

Quote
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.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/12/health/climate-change-allergies/index.html
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: jeremyrh on August 30, 2019, 02:00:45 am

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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on August 30, 2019, 04:40:58 am
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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on August 30, 2019, 05:04:08 am
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

+1
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Ray on August 30, 2019, 08:16:44 am
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on August 30, 2019, 09:25:45 am
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.

Fair enough, perhaps not face-to-face, but here on this foum they are present all the time, telling us that things were ever thus, and global warming but a myth.

You can do your own research here for that one - it's easy to find them.

;-)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on August 30, 2019, 09:40:18 am
...and global warming but a myth.

I don't think anyone's said that, Rob. What the people with some actual understanding of the situation have said is that the earth warms and the earth cools. It's been doing that as far back as we can track things with paleogeology and paleontology. The real problem is the sun, and windmills and solar panels aren't going to help us control the sun. But the prospect of a new ice age that was all the rage fifty years ago, and the current fashion of an earth getting unbearably hot make it possible for people to come up with scary charts, and in panicky voices "debate" the situation. This will go on as long as there are people. It's all politics, and as long as you have even two people left on the earth you'll have politics.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Ray on August 30, 2019, 10:02:59 am
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

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

"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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: jeremyrh on August 30, 2019, 10:04:19 am
It's all politics, and as long as you have even two people left on the earth you'll have politics.

Nope. It’s all actually science. And if you have a better theory then there are effective ways for you to present it.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: jeremyrh on August 30, 2019, 10:07:12 am
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Ray on August 30, 2019, 10:24:05 am
Since you don’t present any evidence that will be tricky.

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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on August 30, 2019, 10:31:33 am
Try to be more rational.

Good luck with that.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: jeremyrh on August 30, 2019, 10:36:43 am
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.

Not really - you quoted some trivial analogy.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: jeremyrh on August 30, 2019, 10:37:49 am
Good luck with that.

Careful with the personal attacks, Russ - you don’t want Roussak banning you, do you?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Ray on August 30, 2019, 10:45:55 am
Not really - you quoted some trivial analogy.

So you didn't bother reading the article. Right?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 30, 2019, 11:37:23 am
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

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

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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 30, 2019, 12:49:48 pm
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:
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=23&t=1141&&a=15#132190

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

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Ray on August 30, 2019, 01:46:29 pm
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.

No need to assume. It was stated clearly in the article that "This paper is based on a talk given by Dr Christy at the Palace of Westminster on 8 May 2019".

Quote
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:

It's difficult to prove anything relating to the causes of climate change. But one can prove that climate-model predictions made 30 to 40 years ago were drastically wrong and exaggerated, which is Dr Christy's main point in this article.

In other words, the claimed sensitivity of the climate to anthropogenic emissions of CO2, has been grossly exaggerated, so far.

Quote
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

Dr John Christy is a very qualified climate scientist with over 100 peer-reviewed papers to his credit. Skepticalscience.com is a biased, climate alarmist site which doesn't tolerate any serious differences of opinion. I know because I've commented on the site, politely and rationally, and have been banned twice, using different names. On that site, any unqualified person can waffle on with their subjective views, as long as they support the alarmist position. That's not science. I strive to be objective.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: jeremyrh on August 30, 2019, 03:36:52 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 30, 2019, 09:20:40 pm
The problem with destruction is not that the climate is changing.  Rather it's because people are moving to where the destruction happens such as mid-Florida where Hurricane Dorian is likely to hit.

"How We Create Our Own Hurricane Catastrophes"
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/30/opinion/florida-hurricane.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/30/opinion/florida-hurricane.html)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on August 31, 2019, 09:40:02 am
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?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 31, 2019, 11:51:23 am
How about giving us an idea of what you think is "science," Jeremy?

Not Jeremy, but I'll help you with one of many definitions.

Science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
Quote
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.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on August 31, 2019, 11:55:15 am
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 31, 2019, 12:37:42 pm
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?

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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 31, 2019, 01:06:10 pm
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
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.   
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on August 31, 2019, 01:32:17 pm
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: jeremyrh on August 31, 2019, 01:43:50 pm
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.

NASA disagree. Hmm...  who seems more reliable ... ?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/climate.nasa.gov/evidence.amp
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 31, 2019, 02:06:06 pm
Absolutely, Bart. And the sun rises in the morning and sets  at night.

Only if you do not travel at the same angular speed in the same direction as the sun appears 1) to travel.

1) Science tells us that it's the rotation of the earth that's causing it, not the rotation of the sun around the earth.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 31, 2019, 02:51:14 pm
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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on August 31, 2019, 02:57:49 pm
Ah yes, a "scientific consensus." Well, we can be sure it's true then if there's a "scientific consensus." The term "scientific consensus" is an oxymoron.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 31, 2019, 05:30:49 pm
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.  :)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 31, 2019, 05:56:28 pm
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.  :)

Apparently it's not the quantity, it's the 'quality'. Unless of course Science got it all wrong.

As I said, it also depends on the water temperature how much energy and watervapor these beasts contain, and how slow they move when dumping the precipitation. In the case of Florida, it also matters how high the tide is if/when it makes landfall. If it makes landfall in Florida, it could be at high tide.

I sympathize with the people of the Bahama's, Florida, and the Carolina's. It's not a joke to lose your home, or worse still.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 31, 2019, 06:16:10 pm
... 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!?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on August 31, 2019, 07:35:06 pm
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?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 31, 2019, 07:37:02 pm
I have never seen an evacuation ticket. What does that buy you?

A trip to Dominican Republic ;)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on August 31, 2019, 07:48:20 pm
Stay safe wherever you are.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on August 31, 2019, 10:38:13 pm
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!?

You're acting silly (I sincerely hope you do not mean what you just said). Because it has already been explained before.

In another thread that you participated in, Bernard Languillier worded it already more concisely than I could:
https://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=131708.msg1125812#msg1125812

It's so simple that it's amazing that you don't get it (I hope you're not serious, as usual, even without a smiley).

I feel a bit embarrassed that I need to explain such simple concepts in more detail to you, but here it goes.
BTW, I also hope you don't think that other forum members are too stupid to notice.

Attached, I've added a chart (Russ, eat your heart out ;D) that shows the actual average daily temperature (!, daily fluctuations can be approx. +/- 10°C larger than the average during summertime, less at wintertime) as measured by a number of Air Quality measuring stations that I've installed at different locations with several other citizens across my home town. We're actually measuring Particulate Matter levels to complement and validate the models based on the official National Reference Stations, but as a by-product of calibrating those sensors, we also acquire Temperatures.

It should be obvious, also (even?) to you, that winter temperatures are lower than summer temperatures. However, they do fluctuate around a mean value (the mean value depends on the time period one chooses, duh). And in this case, although for a climate trend we'd need a much longer (11 year or multi-decadal) period than 1 year, the temperature at the same day in the year went from 17.6 -> 21.5°C (yes we experienced another relatively hot summer).

So yes, it can be easier and more accurate to predict/model a long term trend accurately than a short term exact value, duh.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 31, 2019, 11:43:49 pm
Both you and Bernard are playing with historic, actual data. Where is the predictive part?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on September 01, 2019, 12:02:08 am
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

Quote
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.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottsnowden/2019/08/16/greenlands-massive-ice-melt-wasnt-supposed-to-happen-until-2070/#7f9e68e64894

Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on September 01, 2019, 02:20:41 am
Good to see Florida will  be spared the worst of the hurricanes destructive power. I have an ex girlfriend living on Hilton Head and I hope she is going to be OK. Seems that’s where Dorian is now headed.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on September 01, 2019, 07:19:28 am
Both you and Bernard are playing with historic, actual data. Where is the predictive part?

Do you really not get it?

We can forecast that in the summer it will be warmer than during the winter, and we can give a range of probability around the modeled temperature. The expected temperature and range differ by location, so a generic forecast for a larger region will be less specific for random locations.

Trying to forecast it months ahead for a specific day comes with a wider range of uncertainty because e.g. daily variations in cloud-cover create a different temperature range around the average both during the day and the night. A week ahead it becomes more likely that we use the correct amount and type of cloud-cover in our models, so the forecast is likely to be closer to the actual temperature, but probably still somewhere in the range that was given months ago.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on September 01, 2019, 11:28:03 am
Both you and Bernard are playing with historic, actual data. Where is the predictive part?
+1
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on September 01, 2019, 12:44:12 pm
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



Three or four weeks ago I hit an 18-1 long shot at the race track.  It paid $96 back to me on my $5 bet.  Of course, the odds of the horse winning was not 18-1.  It was whatever they were and no one really knows that.  Maybe only the horses knew. :)  The only thing the 18 - 1 represents, is what the pari mutuel tote system arrived at based on actual bets.  The final payoff odds are based on actual bets made on each of the horses.  Had people bet more money on the winning horse, the "winning" odds would have gone down.  But the odds of the horse winning would have remained the same.  So why mention all this?

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.  :)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: jeremyrh on September 01, 2019, 01:43:41 pm

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.

I recommend you think of another theory :-)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on September 01, 2019, 09:16:46 pm
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.

I recommend you think of another theory :-)
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. 

If 97% of climatologists think that CO2 is going to raise the earth's temperature let;s say 3 degrees, but they missed an important criteria just as the economists did, the earth isn't going up the three degrees.  In effect, it is what it is.  Errors made in calculation, whether by  race handicappers, economists or climatologists will not change the actual odds and final results.  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.  It's all based on hope and faith they're right.  Sounds like a religious experience.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on September 02, 2019, 12:50:03 am
Screw global warming 70 years from now.  I hope the climatologists are accurate that Hurricane Dorian is going to turn north before it slams into West Palm Beach area and north of there.  They're running out of time and I have family and friends who live down there in FLorida where the storm is currently aiming.  Watching the news right now that the turn north will happen is losing confidence.  They're recommending that people get up early to check the news to see if the predictions are wrong!!! Now they're talking that residents should think about moving out and going further west just in case.  Are they serious?  A million people to leave now right before the storm arrives?    There's maybe two roads that go east to west in that area.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: jeremyrh on September 02, 2019, 03:37:24 am
Belief does not affect outcomes; even beliefs at 97% confidence.   

Correct. And nobody suggested that it does. Another straw man.

Quote
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,

Quote
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: RSL on September 02, 2019, 09:20:08 am
There are two kinds of people who claim to understand long-term climate change and how to control, or at least modify it. There are those silly enough to believe what they’re saying. These people are earnest and in a hurry to convince you that their analyses are correct and their solutions effective. Then there are the politicians, distrustful of the panic prosecuted by the earnest believers, but unwilling to let a crisis – even a synthetic one -- go to waste. These are the ones who will try to convince you that government can solve the problem; that government can solve any problem, especially if the government follows their plan.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on September 02, 2019, 10:02:42 am
Correct. And nobody suggested that it does. Another straw man.
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?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: jeremyrh on September 02, 2019, 10:12:52 am
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on September 02, 2019, 10:44:39 am
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.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: jeremyrh on September 02, 2019, 10:58:20 am
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. 

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).
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on September 02, 2019, 11:17:07 am
I was responding to your statement The climatologist does not have any man made experiences they're drawing their conclusions with. 

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).
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. 
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on September 02, 2019, 12:28:26 pm
No. It just means that you didn't read what I wrote carefully enough.

Or that you didn't write it carefully enough (i.e., less open to misunderstanding) ;)
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: jeremyrh on September 02, 2019, 12:31:24 pm
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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on September 02, 2019, 01:56:54 pm
CO2 is CO2

Correct, and its (Greenhouse Gas) properties have never changed.

Alan K. may be misinterpreting the fact that it is possible to differentiate between the origins of the CO2 by looking at its Carbon isotopes. But those Carbon isotopes do not materially change the (greenhouse) properties of the CO2 gas.

It remains a greenhouse gas that is relatively transparent for visible light wavelengths coming from the sun, but relatively opaque for reflected sunlight coming from the earth that has longer wavelengths. So the direct sunlight enters the atmosphere and the reflected sunlight is blocked, warming up the atmosphere.

Methane (CH4) is another Greenhouse gas, much more effective at blocking the reflected energy than CO2, but it breaks down in the atmosphere faster.

Hydrogen (H) gas is another Greenhouse gas, much more of it is present compared to CO2, but it is relatively short-lived as a Greenhouse gas because it will come down as precipitation when it condensates.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on September 02, 2019, 02:55:10 pm
You both totallyand deliberately ignored my points.   
I need to get on with my life. Have a nice day.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: jeremyrh on September 02, 2019, 05:13:57 pm
I need to get on with my life.

Let's see how long that lasts, eh?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Ray on September 03, 2019, 04:50:07 am
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. Volcanic ash or dust released into the atmosphere during an eruption will shade sunlight and cause a temporary cooling in the region. The sulphur dioxide emitted by volcanoes produces an even more significant cooling, and its effect lasts longer and is more wide-spread. The sulphur dioxide moves into the upper atmosphere where it combines with water to produce sulphuric acid which forms into a haze of tiny droplets reflecting incoming solar radiation.

If the volcanic activity is massive enough, this cooling effect could continue for a several years causing an expansion of the ice cover at the poles which results in a greater 'albedo' area, which reflects yet more incoming solar radiation, and prolongs the cool period.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL050168

"Here we present precisely dated records of ice‐cap growth from Arctic Canada and Iceland showing that LIA summer cold and ice growth began abruptly between 1275 and 1300 AD, followed by a substantial intensification 1430–1455 AD. Intervals of sudden ice growth coincide with two of the most volcanically perturbed half centuries of the past millennium."

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/89813/satellite-catalogs-volcanic-sulfur-emissions

“Many people may not realize that volcanoes are continuously releasing quite large amounts of gas, and may do so for decades or even centuries,” said Michigan Technological University volcanologist Simon Carn, the lead author of the study. “Because the daily emissions are smaller than a big eruption, the effect of a single plume may not seem noticeable. But the cumulative effect of all volcanoes can be significant. In fact, on average, volcanoes release most of their gas when they are not erupting.”

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.

Alarmist will of course claim that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere due to volcanoes is relatively small, despite the obvious fact that it is not known how many volcanoes on land and sea are continuously emitting CO2, whether the volcanoes are erupting or not. How scientific of them!  ;D ;D  One has to admit these alarmists have a firm grasp on the methodology of science.  ;D ;D

Here's an article linking recent research on volcanic CO2 emissions. However, if you are an alarmist, you must not read this scientific research because it must be junk science. Any research that casts doubt on the validity of the 97% consensus, cannot be true because 'the science is settled'. You've been warned!  ;D ;D

http://www.plateclimatology.com/discovery-of-massive-volcanic-co2-emissions-puts-damper-on-global-warming-theory



Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: jeremyrh on September 03, 2019, 06:16:25 am
That seems a rather flawed example because volcanoes do not emit only CO2.

Yes you are right. It was the first example of a non man-made co2 source that came into my head. Thanks for the links anyway.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Rob C on September 03, 2019, 06:20:52 am
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.

;-(

Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on September 03, 2019, 07:55:56 am
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.

Well said, that's common sense. Who would argue with that?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on September 03, 2019, 08:02:29 am
Apparently natural volcanic and man-made CO2 emissions have the same carbon isotopic fingerprint.

No they don't, and it's not the only way we know that.

In short, 12-C is more common in plant material, 13-C is the most common variant overall (including in volcano emissions), and 14-C has a relatively (in geological terms) short halftime, so it won't be found in really old sources. The fingerprint of the rising CO2 levels points to a balance that increases the 12-C more than the other isotopes of carbon, and is very low in 14-C. Hence the source is predominantly old plant-based materials, and not molten or weathering rock. The isotope ratios do provide a 'fingerprint'.

Quote
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.

Not true, as explained above.

I'm sorry that I apparently have to repost this link, a concise explanation by Prof. Richard Alley:
The chemistry of the added CO2 reveals its source: it's humans burning fossil fuels, and not volcanoes or the ocean.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PrrTk6DqzE&feature=youtu.be
It's the simplest explanation I could find. Too bad that the manmade origin of the excess CO2 emission levels is still denied.

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on September 03, 2019, 08:19:35 am
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
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on September 03, 2019, 08:37:58 am
Here's an article linking recent research on volcanic CO2 emissions.

Sadly, that article was written by a guy (James E. Kamis) who also writes on the about page of his website:
Quote
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.

Really Ray, Really? That's the best you can do?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: jeremyrh on September 03, 2019, 09:19:40 am
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 also linked to a similar article from, as I recall, Technology Review.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Ray on September 03, 2019, 09:24:47 am
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

Well, thanks for at least attempting to explain the difference, Bart, but I'm not convinced. Can you provide a link to some real scientific research which makes this clear? I don't automatically accept statements made on Youtube videos without references to reliable scientific studies. I want to see the scientific evidence.

I don't care who provides the link to the scientific evidence. It is the quality of the evidence that counts, not your subjective impression of the person who provided the link.

The following link that I provided earlier, makes a clear statement on the issue, with a link to a Skepticalscience.com article in support of their statement.

http://www.plateclimatology.com/discovery-of-massive-volcanic-co2-emissions-puts-damper-on-global-warming-theory

"Natural volcanic and man-made CO2 emissions have the exact same and very distinctive carbon isotopic fingerprint.  It is therefore scientifically impossible to distinguish the difference between volcanic CO2 and human-induced CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels (see here). https://skepticalscience.com/anthrocarbon-brief.html

"Declining C14 ratio indicates the source is very old, hence fossil fuel or volcanic (ie, not oceanic outgassing or a recent biological source);
4) Declining C14 ratio
Carbon 14 is formed in the atmosphere by collisions between cosmic rays and Nitrogen.  It has a very short half life (5,730 years), but atmospheric C14 is continuously replenished, maintaining a near constant concentration.  Buried C14 is not replenished, however.  As a result, whether from volcanoes or fossil fuels, CO2 from long-buried sources has effectively no C14.  The addition of large quantities of CO2 from a long-buried source to the atmosphere will result in a significant decline in C14 concentration in the atmosphere, which is what we see.  More recent, high precision measurements show the decline in C14 continued after the end of atmospheric nuclear testing.This is strong evidence that the source of the increased concentration of CO2 is fossil carbon, either from volcanoes or from fossil fuels."


I've searched Google Scholar for studies that specifically address this issue, how to distinguish between volcanic CO2 and CO2 from fossil fuel, and cannot find anything definite relating to differences in isotopic fingerprints. It seem there might be something very uncertain here.
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on September 03, 2019, 09:50:35 am
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?
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: LesPalenik on September 03, 2019, 10:04:31 am
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?

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.
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.

Quote
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.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-31/trump-helicopters-into-golf-course-after-staying-back-for-storm?srnd=premium-canada
Title: Re: Extreme weather
Post by: Alan Klein on September 03, 2019, 10:26:03 am
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.
It's well known fact that hurricanes form over the warm ocean water of the tropics. The warm water heats the air, the