Climate continues to change.

[gunthernehmen]

It couldn't exist without fossil fuels.

Well it "could" but nobody in this day and age would live in such a house.

 

[Rightguide]

Well it "could" but nobody in this day and age would live in such a house.

It couldn't be manufactured, sold, delivered, or maintained, without products made with or fueled by petroleum fossil fuels.

 

[gunthernehmen]

It couldn't be manufactured, sold, delivered, or maintained, without products made with or fueled by petroleum fossil fuels.

Correct.

A house built using locally sourced materials that can be harvested, processed and used with hand tools and muscle power would be akin to the houses the Pilgrims built and lived in hundreds of years ago. With our greater knowledge of construction and designing to play to the environment would result is a slightly better home than theirs, but not by much.

I would actually not mind such a house. But I don't see that being a popular lifestyle choice. Certainly not any of the democrats I am surrounded by. They wouldn't be caught DEAD without a Prius or two in the driveway, creature comforts and chai tea.

 

[Rightguide]

Correct.

A house built using locally sourced materials that can be harvested, processed and used with hand tools and muscle power would be akin to the houses the Pilgrims built and lived in hundreds of years ago. With our greater knowledge of construction and designing to play to the environment would result is a slightly better home than theirs, but not by much.

I would actually not mind such a house. But I don't see that being a popular lifestyle choice. Certainly not any of the democrats I am surrounded by. They wouldn't be caught DEAD without a Prius or two in the driveway, creature comforts and chai tea.

Truth is few people are equipped or even know how to survive in an environment where fossil fuels or products are banned. Millions upon millions would die of simple starvation and exposure. Such a ban would halt the distribution of all goods and services. The political left represented by the likes of AOC are felony stupid.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Truth is few people are equipped or even know how to survive in an environment where fossil fuels or products are banned. Millions upon millions would die of simple starvation and exposure. Such a ban would halt the distribution of all goods and services. The political left represented by the likes of AOC are felony stupid.

Well YOU'RE quite the optimist. I think it would be far worse than that if it actually happened. The survivors would be a scattering of people living in remote, rural areas FAR away from cities and already independent. Sadly, I don't live in such a place. I'd be dead like the rest, with or without "outdoorsman" skills.

 

[Que]

You might not but I do. They're home is heated by geothermal energy.There are water pipes in the walls that carry the heat around the house. In winter the floors get nice and toasty.

It may be more efficient but it still uses fossil fuel to produce the electricity to run the blower as well as th9 pump the water. Also massive amounts of fossil fuels were used in order to drill and place the geothermal exchange piping.

Reminds me how the idiots at my power company touted the environmental benefits of throwing away your gas-pack and installing a hear-pump. Never mind the environmental waste of throwing away the old and the environmental waste of creating the new, there's no way that burning natural gas to heat water to produce steam to turn termans to produce electricity to turn a compressor to create heat is more efficient than using natural gas to create heat, because there's something called the law of conservation of energy.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

LOL - bring up common sense mitigation of the destructive impact of pollution on our air and water and the alarmists immediately think we will be forced into living on the set of 'The Last Chase'.

Too funny.

 

[coati]

What a lot of words you type to completely miss the point. The point is people that use phrases like the consensus (as if that has any role in actual science) and settled science (an oxymoron) are morons.

"Peer reviewed" means "worships in the same church."

You glibly speak as if you are an authority on all branches of scientific review. The only review your "publications" receive are on the GB.

Have you reached a consensus with the other GB Deplorables? Congratulations.

 

[thør]

Individuals/consumer carbon emissions are inconsequential vs emissions from industry and electricity production. The "what do you drive" retort is the most infantile response to any real discussion of what needs to happen to curb the reckless pollution of our air and water. Stopping pollution, net-zero emissions and non-carbon energy generation on an industrial scale is the only meaningful approach.

The comparison of the science of the effects of pollution on the environment to a religion is even more absurd.

Where do these people come from?

I can't save the world buy buying a Tesla for myself and a Prius for the housekeeper to use?

Damn.....

 

[coati]

It couldn't be manufactured, sold, delivered, or maintained, without products made with or fueled by petroleum fossil fuels.

Your illogical argument here is based on an extreme extrapolation about what needs to be done in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. You keep raising the argument about how we depend upon fossil fuels, as if that is the core question.

Buckminster Fuller addressed that issue over a half century ago. He said we need to treat fossil fuels and their products as a national reserve, and not simply spend them as if there is no tomorrow.

I know this is asking a lot of an extremist, but if you moderate your extreme thinking, you may be able to work with others to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the energy production sector.

However, if beneath your spurious argument about the usefulness of fossil fuels, you don't even accept that greenhouse gasses trap heat in the atmosphere, then there is no hope for solution-building with you.

 

[von_Bismarck]

What a lot of words you type to completely miss the point. The point is people that use phrases like the consensus (as if that has any role in actual science) and settled science (an oxymoron) are morons.

As I once explained to that dimwit tryfail, scientific consensus is absolutely a part of the scientific process. One of the major activities of scientists is consensus building. The fact that you deny this is reason for you to take a class on scientific method and reasoning.

"Peer reviewed" means "worships in the same church."

It's unfortunate you're the mouthpiece for this sentiment. Peer review is a flawed process, and both its flaws and fixes are with discussing. But that it is flawed does not mean that it ought to be eliminated, or that scientific theory or its component models can be dismissed prima facie. It does mean that there is room to improve peer review.

 

[gunthernehmen]

LOL - bring up common sense mitigation of the destructive impact of pollution on our air and water and the alarmists immediately think we will be forced into living on the set of 'The Last Chase'.

Too funny.

Not at ALL what I think.

I think nobody but NOBODY will ever make any significant effort to reduce their carbon footprint. That means individuals and that means businesses and that means government. It's too inconvenient.

I acknowledge the hypocrisy but I've met few if any libs and NO climate scarologists that will do so.

Go nuclear or shut up. Wind/solar are unicorn farts in the wind.

 

[thør]

You might not but I do. They're home is heated by geothermal energy.There are water pipes in the walls that carry the heat around the house. In winter the floors get nice and toasty.

I love my toasty floors in winter. Mine are heated using an ultra high efficiency (95%) natural gas boiler. A substantially more efficient method than using electricity for heat made from natural gas in the new combined cycle gas turbine plant in town.

Most likely, your friend's home is heated (and cooled) with a heat pump that uses electricity to run the compressor, a fan in summer(if cooled), and a few pumps. In Ontario, (based on 2011 data) about 82% of the power that was generated came from nuclear, hydro and solar (in that order) and only about 18% came from burning fossil fuels. Space heating and cooling using ground coupled heat pumps (which is most likely the type of geothermal system your friend has) is an increasing market in the HVAC biz, not so much because it's environmentally sane, but because it's cost effective in the long run.

 

[trysail]

Hurricanes & Climate Change: Detection

https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/slide01.png

by Judith A. Curry, Ph.D.

"...The relatively short historical record of hurricane activity, and the even shorter record from the satellite era, is not sufficient to assess whether recent hurricane activity is unusual for during the current interglacial period. Results from paleotempestology analyses in the North Atlantic at a limited number of locations indicate that the current heightened activity is not unusual, with a ‘hyperactive period’ apparently occurring from 3400 to 1000 years before present.

Global hurricane activity since 1970 shows no significant trends in overall frequency, although there is some evidence of increasing numbers of major hurricanes and of an increase in the percentage of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes.

In the North Atlantic, all measures of hurricane activity have increased since 1970, although comparably high levels of activities also occurred during the 1950’s and 1960’s."



more...




​

-Judith A. Curry, Ph.D.
Professor & Chair, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences (emerita)
Georgia Institute of Technology
Ph.D., Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, 1982
NASA Advisory Council Earth Science Subcommittee
Fellow, American Meteorological Society
Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science
Fellow, American Geophysical Union


​

 

[Que]

LOL - bring up common sense mitigation of the destructive impact of pollution on our air and water and the alarmists immediately think we will be forced into living on the set of 'The Last Chase'.

Too funny.

Who is in favor of actual pollution of air and water?

 

[phrodeau]

Not at ALL what I think.

I think nobody but NOBODY will ever make any significant effort to reduce their carbon footprint. That means individuals and that means businesses and that means government. It's too inconvenient.

I acknowledge the hypocrisy but I've met few if any libs and NO climate scarologists that will do so.

Go nuclear or shut up. Wind/solar are unicorn farts in the wind.

If, as you maintain, there is no scientific basis for human-caused climate change, where is the hypocrisy?

 

[coati]

I love my toasty floors in winter. Mine are heated using an ultra high efficiency (95%) natural gas boiler. A substantially more efficient method than using electricity for heat made from natural gas in the new combined cycle gas turbine plant in town.

Most likely, your friend's home is heated (and cooled) with a heat pump that uses electricity to run the compressor, a fan in summer(if cooled), and a few pumps. In Ontario, (based on 2011 data) about 82% of the power that was generated came from nuclear, hydro and solar (in that order) and only about 18% came from burning fossil fuels. Space heating and cooling using ground coupled heat pumps (which is most likely the type of geothermal system your friend has) is an increasing market in the HVAC biz, not so much because it's environmentally sane, but because it's cost effective in the long run.

In Arizona, peak energy usage by heat pumps for air conditioning during the summer overlaps nicely with peak solar energy production, but rooftop solar production is being resisted by major utilities, because it bites into their central control of energy production and associated revenue streams. Thus, renewable energy portfolio standards in Arizona are stuck at a ridiculously low level, and utilities are lobbying to impose more fees on rooftop solar production that ties into the main grid via net metering.

My grid power is supplied by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and I don't even have an option for a net metering system.

If we can tweak the regulations to address these policy shortcomings in Arizona and provide incentives for insulating homes and businesses, we can go from 20% renewable usage to at least 80%. A huge difference in greenhouse gas emissions is available.

 

[Ahusband76]

Global tilt and polar shift is happening as the north pole is moving towards Russia. Global warming.. yes but I don't think it has to do with mankind. The only other explanation is due to man is the building of our major cities as we take massive amounts of metal from the ground and continue to build them up.... you can't say that this doesn't have some kind of affect on out north and south poles. I'm not convinced even one ounce that the changes are due to our carbon footprint.

 

[OldJourno]

So, you admit that localized weather data is not equivalent to global climate trends, but you post it anyway on the thread about climate change.

Reminds me of some recent statements about the weather by a president who knows more than any egghead scientist and will very soon cure cancer just to piss off the liberals.

I also realize that climate change fanatics latch onto a single hurricane as a sign that doomsday is coming.

 

[phrodeau]

I also realize that climate change fanatics latch onto a single hurricane as a sign that doomsday is coming.

Can you name one?

 

[Rightguide]

Well YOU'RE quite the optimist. I think it would be far worse than that if it actually happened. The survivors would be a scattering of people living in remote, rural areas FAR away from cities and already independent. Sadly, I don't live in such a place. I'd be dead like the rest, with or without "outdoorsman" skills.

There aren't enough trees to burn close to urban or enough wildlife to support hunting involving the size of today's population. In three months there wouldn't be anything with four legs in sight.

 

[Rightguide]

Your illogical argument here is based on an extreme extrapolation about what needs to be done in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. You keep raising the argument about how we depend upon fossil fuels, as if that is the core question.

Buckminster Fuller addressed that issue over a half century ago. He said we need to treat fossil fuels and their products as a national reserve, and not simply spend them as if there is no tomorrow.

I know this is asking a lot of an extremist, but if you moderate your extreme thinking, you may be able to work with others to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the energy production sector.

However, if beneath your spurious argument about the usefulness of fossil fuels, you don't even accept that greenhouse gasses trap heat in the atmosphere, then there is no hope for solution-building with you.[/QUOT

Nothing I said is false. I'm arguing against the demands of your new found leader AOC who is demanding the banning of fossil fuels in ten years as if it were a possibility.

 

[thør]

There aren't enough trees to burn close to urban or enough wildlife to support hunting involving the size of today's population. In three months there wouldn't be anything with four legs in sight.

Invest in Soylent green.

 

[phrodeau]

Global tilt and polar shift is happening as the north pole is moving towards Russia. Global warming.. yes but I don't think it has to do with mankind. The only other explanation is due to man is the building of our major cities as we take massive amounts of metal from the ground and continue to build them up.... you can't say that this doesn't have some kind of affect on out north and south poles. I'm not convinced even one ounce that the changes are due to our carbon footprint.

Carbon footprints don't affect the climate. It's where the carbon comes from that's the problem. Coal, oil and natural gas are pulled from the ground and burned, with the carbon going into the air. It's the added carbon in the air that is causing solar heat to be trapped in the lower atmosphere.

Carbon dioxide is the stuff dry ice is made from. If you've ever seen dry ice, it usually makes a fog that sinks to the floor. Carbon dioxide is heavier than regular air, so it sticks close to the ground. It does not rise up and disappear into space. Every year, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air we live in increases.

A carbon footprint is the amount of carbon that something is responsible for. If that carbon comes from surface sources like crops, firewood or animal products, the carbon dioxide produced is balanced by the natural processes that absorb carbon dioxide from the air. Any recent creation of fossil fuels cannot keep up with the rate that humans are burning them, so a carbon footprint that includes fossil fuels will only put more carbon dioxide in our air.

 

[gunthernehmen]

If, as you maintain, there is no scientific basis for human-caused climate change, where is the hypocrisy?

YOU are the one claiming climate change is being driven by human activities. Therefore your insistence on maintaining your wastrel, comfort driven lifestyle despite your full knowledge that you are contributing to the devastation of our environment and ecology is hypocritical.

It isn't hypocritical for ME to drive my Denali to work every day with the heat or ac cranked up, nor to run the heat and ac at home so my cat doesn't suffer even when I'm not home, because I have seen no credible evidence that humans are causing the changes.

That is NOT the same as saying "burn more coal" just "because". I love the outdoors. I've hiked the AT and spend a great deal of time "out there". Based on what I know and the opinions I've formed accordingly, either humans are not causing the changes (or not significantly) and there's little we can do even if we are, short of killing off most of us and going back to the stone age. Or at least the bronze age.

I hold a gold standard view that no matter WHAT happens, the planet will survive and will be just fine after we make ourselves extinct. Or even if we don't. It may not be as comfy a world, though.