SkyDekker 1,128 #26 November 17, 2015 Quote No one here disagrees with you. But of course in this case throwing a thicker skin is not the solution. Now "we" are offended and something should be done about it. it is when other people are upset, THEY need to grow a thicker skin. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #27 November 17, 2015 @BIGUN... Through long ago threads where people actually managed to keep on topic, billvon made a couple of posts that really piqued my interest. This prompted me to start digging, and I came across this book of seminal scientific publications that shaped global warming science: The Warming Papers: The Scientific Foundation for the Climate Change Forecast This is an outstanding book that pretty much covers the entire history of global warming science. For example, they include this 1896 publication by Svante Arrhenius On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, in what can be considered the first global warming paper. And many more seminal papers. I've found myself following a trail of papers by Syukuro Manabe, who started doing serious modeling work back in the early 1960s, and has proven to be an incredibly prolific scientific author (Selected Publications, Syukuro Manabe) One cannot argue the physics of CO2 radiation dynamics. Having said that, some interesting points I've come across include: 1) Water vapor is by far the dominant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. It is responsible for almost 60 degF of warming. Our species would not be here without global warming. 2) There is still much work to be done regarding all of the various driving forces active in Earth's climate. Clouds remain a big question, one that has yet to be solved. Is a 2-3 degF increase in temperature going to be catastrophic? I kind of doubt it. Is anything being espoused by our government going to make any difference in this process? No, there is nothing being discussed by our government that is going to change this one bit (Impact of Current Climate Proposals) All that's going to change is government will grow, have more power over our lives, and take more money out of our pockets. If it was really going to be catastrophic, I imagine some adults somewhere would be advocating/driving a massive push to nuclear energy. I don't see that happening. As a matter of fact, lefty greenies don't want it, and continue to advocate energy sources that will not meet our society's energy needs. So, I guess the AGW threat really can't be that serious.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,402 #28 November 17, 2015 >Is a 2-3 degF increase in temperature going to be catastrophic? I kind of doubt it. Depends on who you are and where you live. To someone in Denver? Won't change much, beyond more forest fires, less water and more intense heat waves. To someone in Bangladesh or Dharan? Might be catastrophic indeed. >Is anything being espoused by our government going to make any difference in >this process? No, there is nothing being discussed by our government that is >going to change this one bit. Untrue; different mitigation strategies change overall warming. The IPCC has several scenarios that describe the changes that can be made and the effect on warming. >All that's going to change is government will grow, have more power over our >lives, and take more money out of our pockets. How does generating your own power mean "government will have more power over our lives?" How does having a car that gets 35mpg instead of 30mpg "take more money out of our pockets?" >If it was really going to be catastrophic, I imagine some adults somewhere >would be advocating/driving a massive push to nuclear energy. I don't see >that happening. ============= Mother Jones: Why We Need Nuclear Power Some scientists are calling for 100 percent renewable energy. That's the wrong approach. . . A world without any fossil fuel energy would be a much cleaner place for both people and the environment. Right now renewable energy accounts for just 13 percent of all US electricity. A significant increase in that share would lead to a major reduction in air pollution and its attendant diseases, not to mention the costs of climate change-induced flooding or wildfires. The lives, time, and property saved could be put to work tackling other social problems. But it's not entirely clear that a US energy grid based on 100 percent renewables is the best way to achieve a zero-carbon future. . . . Stanford economics professor Frank Wolak, director of the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development, agrees that nuclear should play a role in a zero-carbon grid. He notes that American nuclear generators are safer than ever and have an extremely high capacity factor, meaning they produce almost all of their potential energy. American nuclear set a record high capacity factor of 91.8 percent for 2014. Wind and solar have capacity factors less than half as large. ============== Power Magazine: Experts: Nuclear Power Must be Expanded to Limit Climate Change Several experts, meeting in Washington on Nov. 6 for the White House Summit on Nuclear Energy, agreed that more nuclear power is needed if the world hopes to minimize the effects of climate change and limit the increase in average temperatures around the globe. William D. Magwood IV, director-general of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Nuclear Energy Agency, said that his organization, working in concert with its sister organization the International Energy Agency, developed the “two-degree-C scenario.” The scenario is designed to evaluate how world energy supply requirements could be met while limiting the global temperature increase to 2C (3.6F). “What this basically says is that this is going to be very difficult,” Magwood said as he referred to a handout he had brought with him. “We are going to have to increase the use of renewables very dramatically. Solar will have to increase quite dramatically. Wind will have to increase dramatically. Carbon sequestration will have to be used quite significantly. We’ll have to use more gas. And, we’re going to have to use more nuclear.” Magwood went on to say, “Nuclear will have to increase 2.3 times in order to meet this scenario. That’s the equivalent of 500 large nuclear power plants built in addition to what we operate today.” ============= SciAm: How Nuclear Power Can Stop Global Warming Nuclear power is one of the few technologies that can quickly combat climate change, experts argue By David Biello | December 12, 2013 When the Atlantic Navigator docked in Baltimore harbor earlier this month, the freighter carried the last remnants of some of the nuclear weapons that the Soviet Union had brandished in the cold war. During the past 20 years more than 19,000 Russian warheads have been dismantled and processed to make fuel for U.S. nuclear reactors. In fact, during that period more than half the uranium fuel that powered the more than 100 reactors in the U.S. came from such reprocessed nuclear weapons. In addition to reducing the risk of nuclear war, U.S. reactors have also been staving off another global challenge: climate change. The low-carbon electricity produced by such reactors provides 20 percent of the nation's power and, by the estimates of climate scientist James Hansen of Columbia University, avoided 64 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas pollution. They also avoided spewing soot and other air pollution like coal-fired power plants do and thus have saved some 1.8 million lives. And that's why Hansen, among others, such as former Secretary of Energy Steven Chu, thinks that nuclear power is a key energy technology to fend off catastrophic climate change. "We can't burn all these fossil fuels," Hansen told a group of reporters on December 3, noting that as long as fossil fuels are the cheapest energy source they will continue to be burned. "Coal is almost half the [global] emissions. If you replace these power plants with modern, safe nuclear reactors you could do a lot of [pollution reduction] quickly." =============== Forbes Obama's Carbon Order Increases Nuclear Energy's Odds Ken Silverstein Mandating the reduction of carbon emissions could result in the increasing use of nuclear energy. Is that good? If the nation’s current and former leaders of the Environmental Protection Agency are asked, the answer is an unmistakable ‘yes.” In fact, once nuclear plants become operational, they are able to generate electricity efficiently, safely and cheaply. Now that the White House is making it more costly for utilities to emit carbon dioxide, nuclear energy could become an attractive option. That’s why Gina McCarthy, Carol Browner and Christine Todd Whitman are stumping for nuclear power as a sure-fired way to keep a lid on current carbon emissions, and potentially as a method to make notable cuts in such releases. ======================= Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #29 November 17, 2015 I was rooting around the internet for some model details, and came across this: Understanding Global Warming It's an online course put together by Michael Mann from Penn State. It looks good.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #30 November 18, 2015 Quote "government will have more power over our lives?" e.g., the EPA shutting down our coal plants. And doing so isn't going to have any impact on global warming. The EPA is proving itself to be dangerously reckless with ever costly mandates that aren't close to being economical. These mandates are going to hurt real people right now. Thanks for the nuclear papers. Happy to see that. It is the only way forward, IMO, for a carbon free system.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #31 November 18, 2015 For those interested in technical details, in addition to Michael Mann's online course, I came across another website: ACS Climate Science Toolkit This, too, looks good.We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,402 #32 November 18, 2015 >e.g., the EPA shutting down our coal plants. Right. You said above that you were in favor of nuclear power plants; great. The new emission rules drives replacement of coal plants with nuclear plants. Since nuclear plants cost more, that will make power more expensive per kwhr; the savings will come from a reduction in pollution, acid rain, deaths from particulate emissions and reduced warming. > And doing so isn't going to have any impact on global warming. That is simply untrue. If we replace coal with nuclear we emit less CO2. If we close a few coal plants we reduce the rate of CO2 increase slightly; if we close a lot of coal plants the rate is reduced significantly. And if we emit less CO2 the problem is reduced. > The EPA is proving itself to be dangerously reckless with ever costly mandates that >aren't close to being economical. These mandates are going to hurt real people right >now. And coal kills real people right now. While deaths from particulate pollution are declining significantly due to tighter emissions controls, coal still kills about 7500 people a year. So how much is a life worth? If you use the British Rail standard (about $2 million a life) that means that closing coal plants would be worth paying $15 billion more a year for power. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #33 November 18, 2015 Quote That is simply untrue. How much impact will it have?We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,402 #34 November 18, 2015 >How much impact will it have? Politically? The director of the CIA said climate change "greatly increases the prospect for famine and deadly epidemics. . . Of the most immediate concern, sharply reduced crop yields in multiple places simultaneously could trigger a shock in food prices with devastating effect, especially in already-fragile regions such as Africa, the Middle East and South Asia." The director of the Food Security Project agreed: "Lack of access to affordable food has proven to trigger revolutions and spark unrest across the world." Financially? A recent study by Cambridge Associates indicates that the average stock portfolio would take a 45% hit in the "worst case" (i.e. no action taken to mitigate.) In the best case (limiting warming to 2C) then by 2050 we'd be back to a 20% rise. Short term costs to hit the 2C target would reduce values by 15 percent in the near term. In terms of people? By 2030, we would likely see 100 million people pushed into extreme poverty by the effects of climate change, per a recent study by the World Bank. In terms of human lives? DARA, an independent Spanish non-profit, predicts that by 2030 we'd see 6 million deaths a year by 2030 due to climate change. Militarily? The DOD says that climate change will "aggravate existing international issues, including environmental degradation, social tensions, poverty, ineffectual leadership and frail political institutions. . . . these factors could threaten peace and stability in a number of nations" per a 2014 report. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CygnusX-1 42 #35 November 23, 2015 Quote especially in already-fragile regions such as Africa, the Middle East and South Asia. But those are all filled with "brown" people. We don't really care about them. And besides if the natives get restless, we can always bomb them into submission which is good for us (government contractors) and our military. It also will help keep the natives here in line by allowing us to propagate fear of said brown people. So until there is food shortages here in the good old USA (or one of our allies who look like us), there isn't a problem. And of course we are going to be the last location on earth that will suffer from food shortages. What kills me the most in discussions is people spouting the "fear" that making changes will be devastating to the economy but without any proof. They always want proof from the "other" side. But supply none for their predictions. I've seen prices for fuel and energy go up and down in my lifetime. None of the times where it was higher has there been civil unrest. Yes for some people it was harder to do stuff. But the overall economy didn't come crashing down. People adjusted and moved on with their lives. My opinion is this is that it is better to make small to moderate changes now even if it really doesn't make a great difference. (I'm doing this in my own life, btw.) Then to wait until it is too late and then have to make drastic changes which may or may not prevent the pending "doom". To me this is the only rational choice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #36 November 24, 2015 CygnusX-1 Quote especially in already-fragile regions such as Africa, the Middle East and South Asia. But those are all filled with "brown" people. We don't really care about them. And besides if the natives get restless, we can always bomb them into submission which is good for us (government contractors) and our military. It also will help keep the natives here in line by allowing us to propagate fear of said brown people. So until there is food shortages here in the good old USA (or one of our allies who look like us), there isn't a problem. And of course we are going to be the last location on earth that will suffer from food shortages. What kills me the most in discussions is people spouting the "fear" that making changes will be devastating to the economy but without any proof. They always want proof from the "other" side. But supply none for their predictions. I've seen prices for fuel and energy go up and down in my lifetime. None of the times where it was higher has there been civil unrest. Yes for some people it was harder to do stuff. But the overall economy didn't come crashing down. People adjusted and moved on with their lives. My opinion is this is that it is better to make small to moderate changes now even if it really doesn't make a great difference. (I'm doing this in my own life, btw.) Then to wait until it is too late and then have to make drastic changes which may or may not prevent the pending "doom". To me this is the only rational choice. Humans adapt. It's how we have survived the climate changing throughout history, written and before, so I welcome change. I believe it will be good for the world.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,128 #37 November 24, 2015 turtlespeed *** Quote especially in already-fragile regions such as Africa, the Middle East and South Asia. But those are all filled with "brown" people. We don't really care about them. And besides if the natives get restless, we can always bomb them into submission which is good for us (government contractors) and our military. It also will help keep the natives here in line by allowing us to propagate fear of said brown people. So until there is food shortages here in the good old USA (or one of our allies who look like us), there isn't a problem. And of course we are going to be the last location on earth that will suffer from food shortages. What kills me the most in discussions is people spouting the "fear" that making changes will be devastating to the economy but without any proof. They always want proof from the "other" side. But supply none for their predictions. I've seen prices for fuel and energy go up and down in my lifetime. None of the times where it was higher has there been civil unrest. Yes for some people it was harder to do stuff. But the overall economy didn't come crashing down. People adjusted and moved on with their lives. My opinion is this is that it is better to make small to moderate changes now even if it really doesn't make a great difference. (I'm doing this in my own life, btw.) Then to wait until it is too late and then have to make drastic changes which may or may not prevent the pending "doom". To me this is the only rational choice. Humans adapt. It's how we have survived the climate changing throughout history, written and before, so I welcome change. I believe it will be good for the world. Don't think it will be climate change that does that. Drug-resistant bacteria will wipe out a couple hundred million well before climate change will be an issue. The posts blaming Obama Care will be fun to read. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterblaster72 0 #38 November 24, 2015 billvon >All that's going to change is government will grow, have more power over our >lives, and take more money out of our pockets. How does generating your own power mean "government will have more power over our lives?" How does having a car that gets 35mpg instead of 30mpg "take more money out of our pockets?" IIRC he works in the fossil fuels industry -- that's how it takes more money out of "our" pockets. Be humble, ask questions, listen, learn, follow the golden rule, talk when necessary, and know when to shut the fuck up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,632 #39 November 25, 2015 WASHINGTON (AP) -- Because of man-made global warming and a strong El Nino, Earth's wild weather this year is smashing the annual heat record, the World Meteorological Organization announced on Wednesday. The United Nations weather agency's early bird report on 2015 says it is the hottest year on record, surpassing last year's record heat. It made the proclamation without waiting for the end of the year because it has been so extraordinarily hot, forecast to stay that way and unlikely to cool down enough to not set a record. The report comes the week before world leaders assemble in Paris to try to negotiate an agreement to fight climate change. "This is all bad news for the planet," the agency's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, said in a statement. The report is not surprising: Scientists at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and elsewhere already were saying that 2015 likely would be the hottest. The U.N. agency, NOAA, NASA and Japan's weather agency all say 2014 is the current record hot year with a global temperature of 14.57 degrees Celsius, 58.23 degrees F. "I would call it certain," NOAA's chief climate monitor, Deke Arndt, said on Tuesday. "Something game-changing massive would have to happen for it not to be a record."... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #40 November 26, 2015 kallendWASHINGTON (AP) -- Because of man-made global warming and a strong El Nino, Earth's wild weather this year is smashing the annual heat record, the World Meteorological Organization announced on Wednesday. The United Nations weather agency's early bird report on 2015 says it is the hottest year on record, surpassing last year's record heat. It made the proclamation without waiting for the end of the year because it has been so extraordinarily hot, forecast to stay that way and unlikely to cool down enough to not set a record. The report comes the week before world leaders assemble in Paris to try to negotiate an agreement to fight climate change. "This is all bad news for the planet," the agency's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, said in a statement. The report is not surprising: Scientists at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and elsewhere already were saying that 2015 likely would be the hottest. The U.N. agency, NOAA, NASA and Japan's weather agency all say 2014 is the current record hot year with a global temperature of 14.57 degrees Celsius, 58.23 degrees F. "I would call it certain," NOAA's chief climate monitor, Deke Arndt, said on Tuesday. "Something game-changing massive would have to happen for it not to be a record." So. What if his prediction is wrong? Is there going to be as much media coverage of the mediocrity of the change?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,632 #41 November 26, 2015 turtlespeed***WASHINGTON (AP) -- Because of man-made global warming and a strong El Nino, Earth's wild weather this year is smashing the annual heat record, the World Meteorological Organization announced on Wednesday. The United Nations weather agency's early bird report on 2015 says it is the hottest year on record, surpassing last year's record heat. It made the proclamation without waiting for the end of the year because it has been so extraordinarily hot, forecast to stay that way and unlikely to cool down enough to not set a record. The report comes the week before world leaders assemble in Paris to try to negotiate an agreement to fight climate change. "This is all bad news for the planet," the agency's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, said in a statement. The report is not surprising: Scientists at the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and elsewhere already were saying that 2015 likely would be the hottest. The U.N. agency, NOAA, NASA and Japan's weather agency all say 2014 is the current record hot year with a global temperature of 14.57 degrees Celsius, 58.23 degrees F. "I would call it certain," NOAA's chief climate monitor, Deke Arndt, said on Tuesday. "Something game-changing massive would have to happen for it not to be a record." So. What if his prediction is wrong? Is there going to be as much media coverage of the mediocrity of the change? What if he's right? Will you, brenthutch and rushmc get out of denial?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,632 #42 November 26, 2015 Impact on Glacier National Park: www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/11/26/ice-worlds/... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,059 #43 November 27, 2015 kallend Impact on Glacier National Park: www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/11/26/ice-worlds/ C'mon Professor. We're trying to keep this on an emotional level and here you are mucking it up with evidence. Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #44 November 29, 2015 kallend Impact on Glacier National Park: www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/11/26/ice-worlds/ Just think how much plant life that will help foster in the coming years!I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,402 #45 December 2, 2015 >What if he's right? Will you, brenthutch and rushmc get out of denial? ?? This is an opportunity for them! In a few years, when there's a slightly cooler year (say, only the fourth highest instead of the highest on record) RushMC will triumphantly post an article entitled "There's only one problem with global warming - it ended in 2015!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #46 December 3, 2015 Those comments are firmly grounded in the adjusted NOAA data...We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,402 #47 December 3, 2015 >Just think how much plant life that will help foster in the coming years! And think of the boom in air conditioner sales! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #48 December 3, 2015 billvon>Just think how much plant life that will help foster in the coming years! And think of the boom in air conditioner sales! Brilliant idea to invest in AC ManufacturersI'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
