3 3
brenthutch

Green new deal equals magical thinking

Recommended Posts

On 7/25/2019 at 9:27 AM, billvon said:

But wind power gives deniers a a serious case of the sads and they don't like the noise! 

My only objection to wind power is the sight of 100's of windmills littering the landscape. One cannot take I-40 west of Amarillo and not see them for miles. There's not even the attempt to mask them into the countryside. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/165366617540276633/  The sight of them disgusts me no less than walking for miles through the forest only to see a McDonalds plastic soda cup laying on the ground. Maybe someone should call Dyson to see what he could do to make them more aesthetically pleasing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

My only objection to wind power is the sight of 100's of windmills littering the landscape. One cannot take I-40 west of Amarillo and not see them for miles. There's not even the attempt to mask them into the countryside. https://www.pinterest.com/pin/165366617540276633/  The sight of them disgusts me no less than walking for miles through the forest only to see a McDonalds plastic soda cup laying on the ground. Maybe someone should call Dyson to see what he could do to make them more aesthetically pleasing. 

I-40 west of Amarillo is devoid of any interest whatsoever until you get almost to Albuquerque.  Claiming that windmills spoil the countryside there is just absurd.

rushmc.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having driven much of that last year, I'd have to disagree with both of you. It's not that devoid of interest, nor do the wind turbines impede the view all that much, for me at least. They're way less offensive than a McDonald's cup on a trail (I'm big on picking that stuff up). I find the wind turbines to be way less intrusive than all the advertising placards that are all over the place along a whole lot of Texas and other freeways; now those are offensive to me.

I guess it takes all kinds.

Wendy P.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, kallend said:

I-40 west of Amarillo is devoid of any interest whatsoever until you get almost to Albuquerque.

I used to make the drive from Tulsa to Albuquerque quite often to see the parents.  The site of the windmills didn't bother me at all, I saw it as a sign of progress.

Meanwhile, in upside down land we have former PM Tony Abbott calling them "the dark satanic mills of the modern era"

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/abbott-calls-wind-turbines-the-dark-satanic-mills-of-the-modern-era-20190719-p528sf.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
On 7/23/2019 at 3:54 PM, DJL said:

This is a graph showing minimums from 1980.  As you can see there isn't much of a change from 2007 to 2018 but there's a profound change from 1980.  

Image result for graph of sea ice volume from 1980

 

 

This would be evidence that natural factors rather than CO2 is causing ice melt.  Arctic sea ice loss stops, global temperature rise slows/plateaus while CO2 levels hit new record highs year after year.

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

This would be evidence that natural factors rather than CO2 is causing ice melt.  Arctic sea ice loss stops, global temperature rise slows while CO2 levels hit new record highs year after year.

To be clear, it's the warm air caused by the elevated presence of CO2 that's causing the ice to melt.  So do you disagree that CO2 is causing the air to be warmer?  Please show the work you've done to reach this conclusion to include sources, math and science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DJL said:

To be clear, it's the warm air caused by the elevated presence of CO2 that's causing the ice to melt.  So do you disagree that CO2 is causing the air to be warmer?  Please show the work you've done to reach this conclusion to include sources, math and science.

Two things

Holocene Climatic Optimum 

Medieval Warm Period

BTW isn’t it funny, when it happened 5000 years ago it was called a Climatic Optimum, when it happens today it is called Climate Crisis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Two things

Holocene Climatic Optimum 

Medieval Warm Period

BTW isn’t it funny, when it happened 5000 years ago it was called a Climatic Optimum, when it happens today it is called Climate Crisis.

That doesn't in any way show that the current steady rise in global temperatures is occurring independently of rising CO2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DJL said:

That doesn't in any way show that the current steady rise in global temperatures is occurring independently of rising CO2.

The spectacular failure of CO2 based climate models does. If they didn’t predict the pause they can’t explain the cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

The spectacular failure of CO2 based climate models does. If they didn’t predict the pause they can’t explain the cause.

What pause are you referring to?  Do you think that there is going to be a perfectly linear change in temperature from year to year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Two things

Holocene Climatic Optimum 

Medieval Warm Period

And by the way, the causes of these two things are not present today.  So that I'm not categorically contradicting you, can you tell us what caused these events and tell us if those elements are present today?  You could then therefore argue that it's those elements and not a rise in CO2 that is the cause of our current global warming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, DJL said:

And by the way, the causes of these two things are not present today.  So that I'm not categorically contradicting you, can you tell us what caused these events and tell us if those elements are present today?  You could then therefore argue that it's those elements and not a rise in CO2 that is the cause of our current global warming.

We have:

Atlantic Multi decadal oscillation, Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle, Pacific decadal oscillation, Milankovitch cycles, ElNino, LaNina, not to mention solar cycles and their interactions with cosmic rays and cloud cover.  It is the interplay between these natural cycles that drive global climate.

let me be clear, I do agree that CO2 has SOME impact on global climate especially at lower concentrations.  However, since physics tells us that the greenhouse effect of CO2 drops off logarithmically, I think the labeling of CO2 as a globe destroying poison requiring trillions of dollars to battle is foolish.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

We have:

Atlantic Multi decadal oscillation, Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle, Pacific decadal oscillation, Milankovitch cycles, ElNino, LaNina, not to mention solar cycles and their interactions with cosmic rays and cloud cover.  It is the interplay between these natural cycles that drive global climate.

You did this before - posted a word salad of things like "the Shockley-Quessier Limit" that you googled but didn't really understand.  It doesn't really help your argument.

Quote

let me be clear, I do agree that CO2 has SOME impact on global climate especially at lower concentrations.  However, since physics tells us that the greenhouse effect of CO2 drops off logarithmically,

All of that is correct - and it is why we can increase CO2 concentrations by 50% and seen only a degree or so of warming.  That is very fortunate.

Quote

the labeling of CO2 as a globe destroying poison requiring trillions of dollars to battle is foolish.

It has never been thus labeled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

We have:

Atlantic Multi decadal oscillation, Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle, Pacific decadal oscillation, Milankovitch cycles, ElNino, LaNina, not to mention solar cycles and their interactions with cosmic rays and cloud cover.  It is the interplay between these natural cycles that drive global climate.

let me be clear, I do agree that CO2 has SOME impact on global climate especially at lower concentrations.  However, since physics tells us that the greenhouse effect of CO2 drops off logarithmically, I think the labeling of CO2 as a globe destroying poison requiring trillions of dollars to battle is foolish.

You're just listing every single method of recording events as if that answers the question.  How are each of these events contributing to the current period of global warming? Take them one by one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/27/2019 at 4:30 AM, BIGUN said:

My only objection to wind power is the sight of 100's of windmills littering the landscape. One cannot take I-40 west of Amarillo and not see them for miles.

Cool.  They mean more clean energy and less pollution.  And they're no more visually intrusive than thousands of miles of powerlines that exist right now (and kill a LOT more birds.)   Less, in many ways, since powerlines go literally everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, billvon said:

Cool.  They mean more clean energy and less pollution.  And they're no more visually intrusive than thousands of miles of powerlines that exist right now (and kill a LOT more birds.)   Less, in many ways, since powerlines go literally everywhere.

Bill, just how does the electricity get from the windmill to the end user?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, billvon said:

Indeed.  It's always _other_ people's backyards (and rivers, and ecosystems) that you are OK with damaging.

I am for high density energy production, which has a smaller footprint than wind and large scale solar and their accompanying distribution web which occupy massive swaths of land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

I am for high density energy production, which has a smaller footprint than wind and large scale solar and their accompanying distribution web which occupy massive swaths of land.

Yep.  And all that land can still be used for farming, cattle, reservoirs - or just left to nature.  Not so true of coal mines, ash slurry ponds or coalyards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

3 3