MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Global Warming is causing the Polar Vortex ???  (Read 6903 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

« Reply #25 on: January 28, 2019, 18:46 »
+2
Well since I am a trained climate scientist like you, I too have an opinion. Well really not that, JK. But I did read long ago a theory that the earth could cool from global warming. Sounds crazy I know! So the theory said that ice melting at the poles would create quite cold runoff of fresh water that could slow or stop important ocean currents that help stabilise global temperatures. Something about cold fresh water falling into the deep sea. Or some such similar thing. It was a long time ago that I read this theory and I don't recall most of the details. But I assure you this was a real theory.


« Reply #26 on: January 28, 2019, 21:52 »
0
sgoodwin4813 and solar, most states give a 30% tax credit for adding solar heat or electric, where are you?

Yes, the 30% Federal tax credit makes a huge difference but not quite enough where I live, and it is being phased out over the next few years.

And what does this mean? "Where I live the cost of energy is too low and the state has been bought off by energy companies to make solar more expensive."

How does the state get bought off by the energy utility to make solar more expensive. Don't you buy the same panels and equipment that the rest of us can buy? Or is there a tax where you live and tax credits where many others live. How does that work?

Installing your own solar panels makes the most sense where electricity rates are the highest - in my state they are well below the national average so it takes a long time to get your investment back.  If you live in Connecticut, Hawaii or California then it makes much more economic sense.  It also works best in states that allow net metering, where you get credits when you generate more electricity than you need (e.g., during summer) that you can use later.  My state - along with many others - makes net metering more difficult, at the behest of the energy companies to protect their own profits.  There is a legitimate concern about net metering, since the companies that install and maintain the power lines should be compensated for their efforts.  There are ways around that but the energy companies get states to go against net metering to protect profits of the energy companies instead of helping the people of the state.

« Reply #27 on: January 28, 2019, 22:19 »
+2
The reality is that climate change is a natural phenomenon. The climate of the planet has been changing for billions of years and it will continue to change in the next million years.

There is no denying that climate change is real, but at the same time, there isn't much that we can do about it. We can try to cut back on emissions and pollution, but it needs to be done around the world and not just be used as a political tool in the United States.

This is certainly true, and there have been many instances of dramatic natural climate change during recorded history.  For example, the "year without a summer" in the northern hemisphere in 1816 resulted from a volcanic eruption that caused extensive famines due to crop failures.  The explosion of the volcano Krakatoa in 1883 depressed temperatures in the northern hemisphere by over 1 C in some areas and it took almost five years to get back to normal.  The "little ice age" in Europe lasted around 500 years - those paintings of people skating on the canals in the Netherlands from the 1600s and 1700s were because they really could do it then.  There are lots of other examples and all completely natural.  And of course we seem to be in an interglacial period anyway.  However, the changes during the past 30-50 years are more extensive and due almost entirely to people.  It will be impossible to provide an exact estimate of how much is due to people with a backdrop of natural changes but we can be confident that much of what is occurring now is preventable.

Climate change is a real phenomenon not just a political tool, but I agree that the whole world needs to do something, not just the US.  We should be leading on this, not retreating.

« Reply #28 on: January 28, 2019, 22:58 »
+1
The reality is that climate change is a natural phenomenon. The climate of the planet has been changing for billions of years and it will continue to change in the next million years.

There is no denying that climate change is real, but at the same time, there isn't much that we can do about it. We can try to cut back on emissions and pollution, but it needs to be done around the world and not just be used as a political tool in the United States.

This is certainly true, and there have been many instances of dramatic natural climate change during recorded history.  For example, the "year without a summer" in the northern hemisphere in 1816 resulted from a volcanic eruption that caused extensive famines due to crop failures.  The explosion of the volcano Krakatoa in 1883 depressed temperatures in the northern hemisphere by over 1 C in some areas and it took almost five years to get back to normal.  The "little ice age" in Europe lasted around 500 years - those paintings of people skating on the canals in the Netherlands from the 1600s and 1700s were because they really could do it then.  There are lots of other examples and all completely natural.  And of course we seem to be in an interglacial period anyway.  However, the changes during the past 30-50 years are more extensive and due almost entirely to people.  It will be impossible to provide an exact estimate of how much is due to people with a backdrop of natural changes but we can be confident that much of what is occurring now is preventable.

Climate change is a real phenomenon not just a political tool, but I agree that the whole world needs to do something, not just the US.  We should be leading on this, not retreating.

And yet, people always used it as a political tool. Former Governor Jerry Brown immediately blamed Global Warming for the wildfires when he was the one responsible for vetoing the fire prevention bill in 2016 that would have forced PG&E to cut trees along their power lines. It was classic deflection to shift the blame from himself to Trump, and it worked because almost everyone in California hates Trump. He should have been the one held responsible for letting PG&E get off easy and then signed a bill to bailout PG&E from lawsuits at the expense of tax payers before his departure. That's corruption at its finest.

When it's immeasurable on how much humans affect climate change, that makes it a fairly abstract concept. We have more cars than ever, more humans than ever. We can all do our part by driving hybrids or electric, but we can't control what other countries do. By comparison, the U.S. use refined petrol while many parts of the world use low quality petrol that greatly contributes to the pollution of this planet. The human population will continue to grow and there is little we can do. It seems like over-population of the planet is inevitable and we end up with some sci-fi scenario we've seen in so many movies.

I don't believe we are retreating. We pulled out of the Paris Agreement because we were asked to give the world $100 billion dollars so they can do whatever they want with that money. And some of that money was going to China and India, who does doing little to curtail their pollution. Everyone is blaming the U.S. because we won't give them free money, but giant economies who claim "third world country" status like China does little to contribute. We can do our part to curtail emissions, but if the the rest of the world want the U.S. to lead, it must be a situation where we're not giving $100 billion dollars away.

dk

« Reply #29 on: January 29, 2019, 09:04 »
+1
We've gotten so much rain in California in the last few months that people has finally shut up about blaming global warming for everything.

When ice melts, water evaporates and there will be more rain. Scientists have said we should expect more rain due to global warming.

« Reply #30 on: January 29, 2019, 17:09 »
+1
We've gotten so much rain in California in the last few months that people has finally shut up about blaming global warming for everything.

When ice melts, water evaporates and there will be more rain. Scientists have said we should expect more rain due to global warming.

Water can evaporate anywhere. There is a giant ocean of water where it can evaporate from.

Global Warming scientists are so inconsistent. First, people blame the lack of rain on it, then too much rain on it. It was supposed to be the dry places get drier and the web places get wetter. Now the dry places get wetter and it's still global warming.

Looks like global warming has everything covered. Cold, hot, rain, snow, hail, hurricanes, drought, tornados. What isn't global warming these days? People need to stop crying wolf and people need to stop believing everything they're told.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2019, 17:11 by Minsc »

« Reply #31 on: January 29, 2019, 18:04 »
+2
If I may enter the discussion, i respect scientists, they devote
their life to a field of knowledge. But there is only one certain proven fact.

Earth found it's balance and survived,
better evolved for millions of years to a paradise.

Well actually, two certain facts: the one above
 and our beleif that we are the owners of the planet.

Actually, the planet, can recover from (guess) anything we do or create
And it can recover retransformed but without us. So, bad news for us.
The planet is the owner of us as long as we cannot leave to a same natural conditions place.
Nor we can adapt as structures, not by tech means to whatever the transformation might be.
We might be able to move to the stars one day, but this place was made for us.
Not in theology terms, but in evolution terms, it was made suited to our structure.

We seem to envy rich people, they can buy a seat on future spaceships but guess what?
No place identical to earth, no other planet accepts dollars or even perhaps gold.

Too bad we didn't make it better. And the only proof of our existance is not all those
monuments, all this art literature, paintings, poetry, music, all this human effort and work
but a planet that might finally destroy us in order to evolve again.

I believe that the earth is not dying, it is adapting
and we are not for sure included it's future plans :)

« Reply #32 on: January 29, 2019, 18:18 »
+4
As a geologist and someone who has spent a fair amount of time in places that have glaciers or used to have glaciers it is pretty obvious that they are melting away much faster than they have in the recent past. Just looking at the before and after photos of some places is astounding. Many of the glaciers in the lower 48 US states will probably be gone in my lifetime.

My take on global warming is that it is real and at least some of it is caused by human actions, it will have drastic effects on humans no matter what we do (too late to completely stop the effects now), we could make it so things won't be all that bad, but we won't until it gets a lot worse. In general wet places will get wetter , dry places will get dryer (warm air can carry more moisture than cool air), and things will be less steady - so for instance in the dry parts of the SW USA it will be dryer most of the time with a few bigger storm events which will lead to flooding and other problems. Mostly climate change will be a problem for people, who like things to stay more or less the way they are used to. Some places will be better off, some not much change, and some will be completely screwed - like Miami or Bangladesh. As people try to leave places that are less habitable all sorts of unpleasantness will erupt.

Will things always exactly follow the broad predictions? of course not. Weather does what it does on a shorter time scale than climate. Over a longer time scale we will see the changes in climate. I hope that my take is too pessimistic, but I worry it might be too optimistic.

« Reply #33 on: January 29, 2019, 19:08 »
+4
He should have been the one held responsible for letting PG&E get off easy and then signed a bill to bailout PG&E from lawsuits at the expense of tax payers before his departure. That's corruption at its finest.

Brown definitely did some shady things and should be called out on them, but "corruption at its finest" I think has to be reserved for Trump - nobody at the state or Federal level seems to have been as corrupt as Trump, and I suspect we have only heard the tip of the iceberg so far.

I don't believe we are retreating. We pulled out of the Paris Agreement because we were asked to give the world $100 billion dollars so they can do whatever they want with that money. And some of that money was going to China and India, who does doing little to curtail their pollution. Everyone is blaming the U.S. because we won't give them free money, but giant economies who claim "third world country" status like China does little to contribute. We can do our part to curtail emissions, but if the the rest of the world want the U.S. to lead, it must be a situation where we're not giving $100 billion dollars away.

Pulling out is definitely retreating. 

Your idea that we were being asked to pay $100 billion so other countries could do whatever they want is factually inaccurate.  The US actually paid $1 billion to a fund that was being used for projects to limit emissions in less developed countries, and our total pledge was only $3 billion.  The plan if I remember correctly was for all countries worldwide to contribute $100 billion, but all of that was to go to mitigating and reducing climate change, not for anything they wanted.  Everyone is blaming the US because it is a fact that we use way more energy per capita than any other country, including India and China combined.  Of course those two countries have total carbon outputs that are high because of their very large populations and they need to be part of the solution.  The main problems with the Paris accords were that it allowed too many countries to slide, had no hard goals and no enforcement mechanism, but at least it was a start.

France has a plan to ban gas and diesel cars by 2040 and several other countries (e.g., Norway) plan to do it even earlier.  Even India and China have plans to ban gas and diesel vehicles.  A couple days ago Germany announced a plan to ban coal use by 2038 and many other countries have done the same.  That is what leadership looks like - countries taking firm steps to combat global warming.  The US is going the wrong direction, and pulling out of the Paris accords just makes us look weak and impotent.

« Reply #34 on: January 29, 2019, 20:00 »
0
He should have been the one held responsible for letting PG&E get off easy and then signed a bill to bailout PG&E from lawsuits at the expense of tax payers before his departure. That's corruption at its finest.

Brown definitely did some shady things and should be called out on them, but "corruption at its finest" I think has to be reserved for Trump - nobody at the state or Federal level seems to have been as corrupt as Trump, and I suspect we have only heard the tip of the iceberg so far.

I don't believe we are retreating. We pulled out of the Paris Agreement because we were asked to give the world $100 billion dollars so they can do whatever they want with that money. And some of that money was going to China and India, who does doing little to curtail their pollution. Everyone is blaming the U.S. because we won't give them free money, but giant economies who claim "third world country" status like China does little to contribute. We can do our part to curtail emissions, but if the the rest of the world want the U.S. to lead, it must be a situation where we're not giving $100 billion dollars away.

Pulling out is definitely retreating. 

Your idea that we were being asked to pay $100 billion so other countries could do whatever they want is factually inaccurate.  The US actually paid $1 billion to a fund that was being used for projects to limit emissions in less developed countries, and our total pledge was only $3 billion.  The plan if I remember correctly was for all countries worldwide to contribute $100 billion, but all of that was to go to mitigating and reducing climate change, not for anything they wanted.  Everyone is blaming the US because it is a fact that we use way more energy per capita than any other country, including India and China combined.  Of course those two countries have total carbon outputs that are high because of their very large populations and they need to be part of the solution.  The main problems with the Paris accords were that it allowed too many countries to slide, had no hard goals and no enforcement mechanism, but at least it was a start.

France has a plan to ban gas and diesel cars by 2040 and several other countries (e.g., Norway) plan to do it even earlier.  Even India and China have plans to ban gas and diesel vehicles.  A couple days ago Germany announced a plan to ban coal use by 2038 and many other countries have done the same.  That is what leadership looks like - countries taking firm steps to combat global warming.  The US is going the wrong direction, and pulling out of the Paris accords just makes us look weak and impotent.

It may not be $100 billion for the U.S., but were were going to pay a good part of it over 10 years. With China and India claiming "third world country" status, they didn't have to pay anything. They were getting money. I think you underestimate the amount of effort the U.S. put into clean renewable energy compared to other countries.

I've visited China a couple years ago and they're not even close to being ready for ban of diesel/gas cars. Neither is India, where they can't even keep the Ganges clean. It's all talk and there has been no progress. That's not leadership. We haven't used coal in our daily lives in decades. The world knows that we have about 75 years of oil left and the reduction of reliance on gasoline is on the map for most of the world powers. It needs to figure out solutions and if there isn't any, we're going to be facing a Mad Max scenario.

There will be an energy crisis in the future. Coal and other fossil fuels are used to maintain the power grid. Solar is not nearly as efficient and it takes up land. Wind is also not as efficient and the turbines kill hundreds of thousands of birds per year. Nuclear is dangerous as we've seen in Japan. The world doesn't have any solutions to remove its reliance on fossil fuels, and until it does, neither coal or gasoline are going away.
« Last Edit: January 29, 2019, 22:53 by Minsc »

« Reply #35 on: January 30, 2019, 19:10 »
+2
As a geologist and someone who has spent a fair amount of time in places that have glaciers or used to have glaciers it is pretty obvious that they are melting away much faster than they have in the recent past. Just looking at the before and after photos of some places is astounding. Many of the glaciers in the lower 48 US states will probably be gone in my lifetime.

My take on global warming is that it is real and at least some of it is caused by human actions, it will have drastic effects on humans no matter what we do (too late to completely stop the effects now), we could make it so things won't be all that bad, but we won't until it gets a lot worse. In general wet places will get wetter , dry places will get dryer (warm air can carry more moisture than cool air), and things will be less steady - so for instance in the dry parts of the SW USA it will be dryer most of the time with a few bigger storm events which will lead to flooding and other problems. Mostly climate change will be a problem for people, who like things to stay more or less the way they are used to. Some places will be better off, some not much change, and some will be completely screwed - like Miami or Bangladesh. As people try to leave places that are less habitable all sorts of unpleasantness will erupt.

Will things always exactly follow the broad predictions? of course not. Weather does what it does on a shorter time scale than climate. Over a longer time scale we will see the changes in climate. I hope that my take is too pessimistic, but I worry it might be too optimistic.

Lately climate deniers frequently mention cold snaps as justification to deny the "fact" that we are losing polar ice and glaciers. If the world is actually getting colder overall as they claim. How do they explain the loss of ice and what do they belive happens when large amounts of cold water enter the ocean currents which act like a conveyor belt - transporting warm water and precipitation from the equator toward the poles and cold water from the poles back to the tropics. It is well known that the ocean currents regulate global weather.

Watch the 6 graph cubes - central to ice melting in the arctic between 1979 - 2018
https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/155/video-annual-arctic-sea-ice-minimum-1979-2018-with-area-graph/

« Reply #36 on: January 31, 2019, 12:48 »
+1
A few elements about the polar vortex.  It splits when the stratosphere heats up quickly.  Solar activity influence the temperature of the stratosphere as well as other factors including human activity.  Meteorologists are studying it and their is no consensus yet. Some patented technologies to manipulate the weather involve heating the stratosphere.  Last autumn, as the price of natural gas reached a 5 year low, some financial advisors were recommending investing in the energy sector -some specifically explained how this year the polar vortex may split resulting in a great demand for natural gas and energy.  Did they hear that from meteorologists? 
Climate change is man made and man can change the climate.  The first official reports of weather manipulation here in Canada came in the mid 50s. Hydro Quebec used weather manipulation technology to trigger rain.  They wanted more water to feed dams in the North.  The federal government acknowledged that they issued permits three years after the fact.  How this technology evolved we do not know much but you can get a glimpse via registered patents.   Quickly warming up the stratosphere is exactly what HAARP does.  And the same results can be obtained using technology installed on satellites.  How and when such technology is used remains classified and is not taken into account when analyzing weather patters.   That human activity has something to do with this vortex I believe absolutely but I am not certain what specific activities.     

« Reply #37 on: January 31, 2019, 14:47 »
0
A few elements about the polar vortex.  It splits when the stratosphere heats up quickly.  Solar activity influence the temperature of the stratosphere as well as other factors including human activity.  Meteorologists are studying it and their is no consensus yet. Some patented technologies to manipulate the weather involve heating the stratosphere.  Last autumn, as the price of natural gas reached a 5 year low, some financial advisors were recommending investing in the energy sector -some specifically explained how this year the polar vortex may split resulting in a great demand for natural gas and energy.  Did they hear that from meteorologists? 
Climate change is man made and man can change the climate.  The first official reports of weather manipulation here in Canada came in the mid 50s. Hydro Quebec used weather manipulation technology to trigger rain.  They wanted more water to feed dams in the North.  The federal government acknowledged that they issued permits three years after the fact.  How this technology evolved we do not know much but you can get a glimpse via registered patents.   Quickly warming up the stratosphere is exactly what HAARP does.  And the same results can be obtained using technology installed on satellites.  How and when such technology is used remains classified and is not taken into account when analyzing weather patters.   That human activity has something to do with this vortex I believe absolutely but I am not certain what specific activities.   


Your post peaked my interest about what HAARP is. Holy crap. https://www.wanttoknow.info/war/haarp_weather_modification_electromagnetic_warfare_weapons
« Last Edit: February 01, 2019, 08:38 by cathyslife »

« Reply #38 on: January 31, 2019, 15:07 »
+1
A few elements about the polar vortex.  It splits when the stratosphere heats up quickly.  Solar activity influence the temperature of the stratosphere as well as other factors including human activity.  Meteorologists are studying it and their is no consensus yet. Some patented technologies to manipulate the weather involve heating the stratosphere.  Last autumn, as the price of natural gas reached a 5 year low, some financial advisors were recommending investing in the energy sector -some specifically explained how this year the polar vortex may split resulting in a great demand for natural gas and energy.  Did they hear that from meteorologists? 
Climate change is man made and man can change the climate.  The first official reports of weather manipulation here in Canada came in the mid 50s. Hydro Quebec used weather manipulation technology to trigger rain.  They wanted more water to feed dams in the North.  The federal government acknowledged that they issued permits three years after the fact.  How this technology evolved we do not know much but you can get a glimpse via registered patents.   Quickly warming up the stratosphere is exactly what HAARP does.  And the same results can be obtained using technology installed on satellites.  How and when such technology is used remains classified and is not taken into account when analyzing weather patters.   That human activity has something to do with this vortex I believe absolutely but I am not certain what specific activities.   


Your post peaked my interest about what HAARP is. Holy crap. https://www.wanttoknow.info/war/haarp_weather_modification_electromagnetic_warfare_weapons
     Note that HAARP is being retired as more efficient technology installed on satellites is available.  Some pretent that other countries also have HAARP like technology - (Russia, China, Germany, SA).

« Reply #39 on: February 01, 2019, 08:20 »
+2
I think you underestimate the amount of effort the U.S. put into clean renewable energy compared to other countries.

The US has certainly done some, but it is a fact that Trump and Reagan before him are rolling back mileage requirements for vehicles.  The US would have lead the world in this after Jimmy Carter was president - he even had solar panels installed on the White House - but those were all dismantled by Reagan solely to benefit energy companies.  The use of solar and wind power in the US has occurred mostly in spite of the government rather than being aided by it, although there have been some tax credits passed that do help a lot (currently being phased out).  It is a shame that our efforts are thwarted by companies protecting their own profits at the expense of the planet.

Solar is not nearly as efficient and it takes up land. Wind is also not as efficient and the turbines kill hundreds of thousands of birds per year. Nuclear is dangerous as we've seen in Japan. The world doesn't have any solutions to remove its reliance on fossil fuels, and until it does, neither coal or gasoline are going away.

I'm not a big fan of some of the huge solar farms that take up a ton of land.  There is one visible from Joshua Trees National Park and another one near Indianapolis airport that really stick out.  But you could put solar cells on every rooftop without using an inch of additional land.  That wouldn't solve all our energy needs, but it would allow the most polluting power plants to be closed and would reduce peak demand in the summer, limiting the strain on the power grid.  Distributed solar would have many benefits, not the least of which would be tons of jobs installing all of the panels.

Yesterday I had someone over to work on my geothermal system.  It is always difficult to get geothermal experts out because it is not as popular as it should be, due to the high initial cost I assume.  I asked him what proportion of people use geothermal and he said in our area it was around 3%.  I couldn't believe it was that low.  He also said that a lot of smaller, rural power companies are making plans to tax all of their customers a certain amount and using the money to help people install geothermal loops.  The reasoning is that geothermal would reduce peak demand during the winter (and to a lesser extent during the summer) and this would lower costs to the companies so that they could reduce rates overall.  That was the first I had heard of that or the concept that spending money up front to install geothermal could lower power rates for everyone in the future.

Worries about wind turbines killing birds are overblown.  The first time I was near the base of a wind turbine I expected to see piles of dead birds, and instead I saw none.  More recent work has shown that the number of birds killed by wind turbines per gigawatt of electricity produced is 20 times less than those killed by traditional power generation.  The world has plenty of potential solutions, they just need to be implemented and for that we need good governments that are not beholden to special interests.

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #40 on: February 01, 2019, 11:05 »
+1

It may not be $100 billion for the U.S., but were were going to pay a good part of it over 10 years. With China and India claiming "third world country" status, they didn't have to pay anything. They were getting money. I think you underestimate the amount of effort the U.S. put into clean renewable energy compared to other countries.

I've visited China a couple years ago and they're not even close to being ready for ban of diesel/gas cars. Neither is India, where they can't even keep the Ganges clean. It's all talk and there has been no progress. That's not leadership. We haven't used coal in our daily lives in decades. The world knows that we have about 75 years of oil left and the reduction of reliance on gasoline is on the map for most of the world powers. It needs to figure out solutions and if there isn't any, we're going to be facing a Mad Max scenario.

There will be an energy crisis in the future. Coal and other fossil fuels are used to maintain the power grid. Solar is not nearly as efficient and it takes up land. Wind is also not as efficient and the turbines kill hundreds of thousands of birds per year. Nuclear is dangerous as we've seen in Japan. The world doesn't have any solutions to remove its reliance on fossil fuels, and until it does, neither coal or gasoline are going away.

Right! With some minor disagreements like the birds or fear of nuclear.

And there's part of the problem where theory and reality diverge. No matter what technology someone comes up with, an opposition will appear. Nuclear is the least pollution but people fear China Syndrome and other sci fi events. The Japan plant was hit by a tsunami following an earthquake. We aren't likely to have that happen in the US. The latest big news was a metric ton of waste, being stored. A ton and everyone is up in arms? Most cars weigh a ton, start thinking. It's being stored in a huge hole, under a mountain, in the Nevada desert, that was made by nuclear testing blasts. In other words, there's already a big hole that's a sealed glass walled chamber, that's already full of radiation.

Wind works, but not as well as it should. Most of those big turbines were built with government money, to make them possible, not because there is a real investment and profit to be made. Some other designs have been tested, birds aside, and when they collect ice, in Iowa, they fling it off and do all kinds of local damage.

Solar for individuals is pretty interesting. Sure big investment up front. but the long therm, can produce a payback. Large scale might take land, but honestly aside from losing farm land, there's still a great amount of open space in the US, much of that in places where farming is nearly impossible. There are also claims of birds being "zapped" or fried in flight, by the collectors.

Geothermal takes time to pay back, sounds interesting in the long term for new homes and the future. There are places using Earth energy already, Iceland is a prime example.

Everything above costs more money than it returns, (except nuclear which has no home application anyway) small wonder people who don't have that money, aren't running to install Sun, Wind or Geo energy for their homes.

The US is converting coal power plants and closing others, moving forward. You want to run your electric car, computer, lighting, and everything else? Better consider where that energy comes from, because the demand is always going up.

So called third world countries, China for one at 15% of the world economy, India at 6th, are trying to evade making changes and stopping their contributions to pollution. The US doesn't control the world or the climate, but they seem to be making the best effort to change.

CNG cars are available, I wanted to get one. Problem is no filling stations in most places and making a home compressor has regulations, permits, where you can have your own and how many thousands it costs to create one. Plus the driving distances, just like electric limits, are too short if there aren't filling locations easily available. However if someone came out with a hybrid CNG/electric I think that would put a huge dent in air pollution and carbon. I'm positive most people don't even know about CNG, except for home heating, or power plants, and how it's potentially a co2 neutral energy source for transportation.  https://www.discover-cng.com/en/key-messages/cng_the_sustainable_alternative/

Fuel locations won't add anything, until there's a demand. Pretty simple economics. Remember when most gas stations didn't have diesel? Demand and profit.

See where this is going? Without some economic payback, or financial incentive, I don't mean government handouts, I mean business, we aren't going to see change, no matter how much anyone wants change. There isn't an unlimited amount of money to pay for ending reliance on fossil fuels.

When the alternate fuel and power sources become efficient enough, they will be adopted. Until then, we are forced to be reliant on fossil fuels. I personally think we don't do enough with Natural Gas which is much cleaner than oil, coal, wood or anything else we can burn for energy.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2019, 11:11 by Uncle Pete »

« Reply #41 on: February 01, 2019, 14:23 »
+2
Im probably late to this discussion, but a recent post by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) explains the science in very simple terms

https://t.co/LDqfq4JH9n
« Last Edit: February 01, 2019, 14:26 by tpack »

« Reply #42 on: February 01, 2019, 15:08 »
0
I think you underestimate the amount of effort the U.S. put into clean renewable energy compared to other countries.

The US has certainly done some, but it is a fact that Trump and Reagan before him are rolling back mileage requirements for vehicles.  The US would have lead the world in this after Jimmy Carter was president - he even had solar panels installed on the White House - but those were all dismantled by Reagan solely to benefit energy companies.  The use of solar and wind power in the US has occurred mostly in spite of the government rather than being aided by it, although there have been some tax credits passed that do help a lot (currently being phased out).  It is a shame that our efforts are thwarted by companies protecting their own profits at the expense of the planet.

Solar is not nearly as efficient and it takes up land. Wind is also not as efficient and the turbines kill hundreds of thousands of birds per year. Nuclear is dangerous as we've seen in Japan. The world doesn't have any solutions to remove its reliance on fossil fuels, and until it does, neither coal or gasoline are going away.

I'm not a big fan of some of the huge solar farms that take up a ton of land.  There is one visible from Joshua Trees National Park and another one near Indianapolis airport that really stick out.  But you could put solar cells on every rooftop without using an inch of additional land.  That wouldn't solve all our energy needs, but it would allow the most polluting power plants to be closed and would reduce peak demand in the summer, limiting the strain on the power grid.  Distributed solar would have many benefits, not the least of which would be tons of jobs installing all of the panels.

Yesterday I had someone over to work on my geothermal system.  It is always difficult to get geothermal experts out because it is not as popular as it should be, due to the high initial cost I assume.  I asked him what proportion of people use geothermal and he said in our area it was around 3%.  I couldn't believe it was that low.  He also said that a lot of smaller, rural power companies are making plans to tax all of their customers a certain amount and using the money to help people install geothermal loops.  The reasoning is that geothermal would reduce peak demand during the winter (and to a lesser extent during the summer) and this would lower costs to the companies so that they could reduce rates overall.  That was the first I had heard of that or the concept that spending money up front to install geothermal could lower power rates for everyone in the future.

Worries about wind turbines killing birds are overblown.  The first time I was near the base of a wind turbine I expected to see piles of dead birds, and instead I saw none.  More recent work has shown that the number of birds killed by wind turbines per gigawatt of electricity produced is 20 times less than those killed by traditional power generation.  The world has plenty of potential solutions, they just need to be implemented and for that we need good governments that are not beholden to special interests.

The main reason why they had to roll back mileage requirements because it's technically not possible to achieve it today. Unless you want every car to drive like a Prius and even the Prius has reached its limits, it cannot be achieved. The weight of the vehicle is also a huge factor and hybrids gets less and less efficient with more and more weight. The max efficiency of lithium ion batteries in cars can achieve about 40-50 mpg on a regular size sedan today and that's with very careful driving. Mazda with its HCCI SkyActiv-X engine may be promising if combined with a battery, but you can only fit so much into a vehicle. Unless battery technology improves around the world, it's impossible to meet the Obama era requirements.

Here is a chart of energy breakdown:

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/electricity-generation-by-major-energy-source.png

Here is a chart of renewable energy breakdown:

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/images/charts/electricity-generation-renewable-sources.png

Solar makes up a tiny portion of the renewable section. It's just not efficient, neither is geothermal. The majority of renewable energy comes from hydro-electric with wind following behind. But if you look at the overall chart, the huge majority of energy comes from fossil fuels and it's not because of just politics. It's because it's much more efficient and it's required to meet the needs of the energy grid. People driving Electric vehicles think they're completely green, but all they did was just transfer the energy production elsewhere. A power plants burns fossil fuels so people can charge their vehicles at home. The entire airline industry runs on nothing but gasoline and short of installing a nuclear reactor on every airplane, their reliance on gasoline is not going away anytime soon.

I want to see the industry make a change as well, into more environmentally friendly ways of upkeeping the powergrid. However, I will not deny the reality of the situation. We NEED fossil fuels right now and it's the main reason why governments are fighting for oil. It's the reason why China and Russia are supporting Maduro, so they can get a piece of that petrol pie in Venezuela for cheap. Sadly, it is going to run out eventually and without an alternative, we're going to be in a bad situation.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2019, 15:18 by Minsc »

« Reply #43 on: February 01, 2019, 17:28 »
0
Im probably late to this discussion, but a recent post by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) explains the science in very simple terms

https://t.co/LDqfq4JH9n

Does that explain why warming makes things colder?

« Reply #44 on: February 01, 2019, 19:05 »
0
Im probably late to this discussion, but a recent post by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) explains the science in very simple terms

https://t.co/LDqfq4JH9n

Does that explain why warming makes things colder?
Yes, the picture explains it perfectly.

« Reply #45 on: February 02, 2019, 09:09 »
+2
Im probably late to this discussion, but a recent post by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) explains the science in very simple terms

https://t.co/LDqfq4JH9n

Does that explain why warming makes things colder?
Yes, the picture explains it perfectly.

No it doesn't did you read the article? NOAA explains why there are wetter storms and more snow. The tea kettle doesn't explain why the polar vortex is colder. The picture also shows a noreaster storm coming off the east coast of the US, not a polar vortex. Nothing to do with cold or cold from the pole. Read and see more snowy winters are less frequent from global warming not more frequent, except off the ocean. If you don't understand science and can't read, you are going to believe anything that supports your politics but you don't understand at all.

« Reply #46 on: February 02, 2019, 11:15 »
0
Im probably late to this discussion, but a recent post by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) explains the science in very simple terms

https://t.co/LDqfq4JH9n

Does that explain why warming makes things colder?
Yes, the picture explains it perfectly.

No it doesn't did you read the article? NOAA explains why there are wetter storms and more snow. The tea kettle doesn't explain why the polar vortex is colder. The picture also shows a noreaster storm coming off the east coast of the US, not a polar vortex. Nothing to do with cold or cold from the pole. Read and see more snowy winters are less frequent from global warming not more frequent, except off the ocean. If you don't understand science and can't read, you are going to believe anything that supports your politics but you don't understand at all.


LOL 😀

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #47 on: February 03, 2019, 10:48 »
0
As the Arctic gets warmer and warmer, the severe weather picks up, Dr. Cohen said.

and a different climatologist says

The frequency of cold waves have decreased during the past fifty years, not increased. That alone shows that such claims are baseless, Mass said.

 ???

Surely not all 'severe weather' constitutes cold waves, so it's possible for there to be an increase in severe weather while still having a decrease in cold spells?

Uncle Pete

  • Great Place by a Great Lake - My Home Port
« Reply #48 on: February 03, 2019, 11:54 »
+1
As the Arctic gets warmer and warmer, the severe weather picks up, Dr. Cohen said.

and a different climatologist says

The frequency of cold waves have decreased during the past fifty years, not increased. That alone shows that such claims are baseless, Mass said.

 ???

Surely not all 'severe weather' constitutes cold waves, so it's possible for there to be an increase in severe weather while still having a decrease in cold spells?

The point was pretty simple, one climatologist says that Winters are more sever and colder, over the last 50 years, because of global warming. While the other climatologist says, look at the data, the Winters are less cold and less sever over the last 50 years.

Assuming they are both using the same data, and neither is just making up facts for the press, one of them is wrong. Anyone can take their pick which side they like better, because we don't have the data to review and make an informed decision.

My other point was, and somewhat tongue in cheek, but some people have no sense of humor, Global Warming is making it colder...  :o

No ones words were twisted, misquoted or distorted, these two scientists disagree. Not like that hasn't happened before in any other fields. We are dealing with theories and models, and climatology is a fairly modern science. There are bound to be adjustments and contradictions. Actually the predictions, some short term and some long, keep changing because the conclusions are not supported by the evidence. Nothing unusual about that either.

Science is not all laws created from immutable facts. Science and the conclusions are flexible, able to adjust and be reformulated based on best evidence. As new discoveries and data is collected science adapts. One would expect as time goes by (Hupfeld) the climate models and theories will also adjust and change.

Short term observations, weather events, followed by the general public claiming it's climate, is terribly unscientific. With that, a cold snap doesn't disprove global warming any more  than a heat wave in the Summer in Australia is proof of global warming. Long term matters, not daily, monthly or event current annual events.

« Reply #49 on: February 10, 2019, 17:32 »
0
Logic fails when one person, which is why I started this, claims that global warming, causes colder Winter events.

I tried to explain this with the ice and glass of water example. When the icebergs melt the ocean will become colder and cold oceans make for colder winters. When all the ice melts then the water will start getting hot.

Of course the earth is not a glass of water with ice and is much more unpredictable.


lol. I giggled at the first glass of water example too.

It's like a glass of ice water, that's set on a low burner ... and is covered in greenhouse glass ... and is spinning causing a coriolis effect and the burner is actually in the middle of the glass ... and the warm water/air causes currents, sometimes very turbulent ones ... and the ice is only at the top and bottom.

I don't argue much with deniers. In the political arena I can only imagine that they have a vested interest in the use of oil and coal because I tend to believe these people to be educated and partially intelligent ... I often stand corrected.

Regardless of the timeline on global warming and whatever effect it's having on WEATHER patterns, the CLIMATE is changing at a rate that a majority of scientists believe is more rapid than it should be. Set that aside, and realize that we are in fact destroying our home ... anyone drink tap water lately? or visit the ocean? what's the air quality like where you live?

Weather/climate argument or not ... I think we can do better.

Edit: Oh, and the burner moves 23.5 degrees up from middle half the time, and 23.5 degrees below the middle half the time. And half the time the burner is closer than the other half.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2019, 17:36 by DallasP »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
9 Replies
5197 Views
Last post October 26, 2006, 16:48
by a.k.a.-tom
IE7 Patch causing FTP failures

Started by zymmetricaldotcom Zymmetrical.com

0 Replies
2090 Views
Last post December 07, 2007, 07:20
by zymmetricaldotcom
2 Replies
1741 Views
Last post August 07, 2008, 10:37
by Whiz
7 Replies
3763 Views
Last post August 19, 2010, 19:07
by FD
16 Replies
3437 Views
Last post June 30, 2012, 22:44
by stockmarketer

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results