Ok, this global warming shit is getting out of hand...

[ron johnson]

I had a pretty long list of your obvious errors and inability to understand basic math and science concepts.

You sure about that? I didn't recall such a thing and made a quick look through your posts and didn't see anything.

And despite you having little activity in this thread it's not like you have a stellar track record.

[ACH]

And despite you having little activity in this thread it's not like you have a stellar track record.

Considering that nearly all your activity on this forum is in this thread feel free to FO&GTFO.

[old goat]

Sadly, we still need to convince many people that we even need to act (I just posted this to fuck with RJ!). But you are right, we need real proposals. There are actually a number of them coming from Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and other Dem Presidential Candidates, but the best have come from Jay Inslee's presidential campaign.

He starts with his “100 percent Clean Energy for America Plan (100 percent Clean Energy for America Plan)



There is quite a bit more in this article: https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envir...president-2020

This is just part one of the five part plan from Inslee. You can see more here: https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envir...green-new-deal

Inslee has dropped out. Very few people paid any attention to his proposals. At this point I'd say it's up to the IPCC and the UN to making proposals like that. And even Inslee's proposals don't go far enough--at this point it's going to take massive government investment to develop zero carbon electricity and the utilities alone won't be able to manage it, even with subsidies. Hell, PGE can't even manage to not burn CA down with its 100 year old infrastructure. Of course, if we start talking about the true cost and the massive government led building program people are going to be turned off, but it will take that. Look at what Ron says--yeah, the world as we know it is being destroyed but it's too expensive to save (or something like that). But people might as well know the truth, recycling your cans is not going to stop global warming. There is no easy way to do it in the time left.

Here's another idea--guess how well this one will fly--gasoline rationing, like WWII. Only farmers etc got significant amounts. If we can agree that global warming is an emergency--and that's unlikely--then drastic programs like that are justified.

[ron johnson]

It's bizarre how ron keeps saying things like "you still think your own subjective experience is more valid than actual data" when the actual data matches up with everyone's subjective experience.

You mean like the guy from Iowa who confirmed his belief in global warming because he thought it was getting so much hotter and drier when the opposite was the case? The current effects of global warming are nearly imperceptible to the human eye, and we are talking about such a small sample size, it would be impossible to overcome the natural variance of climate.

Greenhouse theory dating back to the 1800s was based on the idea that an increasing blanket of CO2 would lead to smaller temperature difference between summer and winter, between days and nights, and between the tropics and the poles. All of this has since been observed.

Warmer winter temperatures interfere with crop cycles, allow pests like bark beetles to extend their range further north, and longer breeding seasons allow disease carrying pests like mosquitoes to proliferate. Warmer winter temps also cause more precipitation to fall as rain instead of snow, disrupting water supplies, and also shorten the winter recreation season length.

A lot of this is theory/conjecture and I'm not going to get into a battle about the effects of warmer winter temperatures on disease carrying pests, but surely you must recognize that there must be some beneficial aspects of warmer winter temperatures like longer growing seasons, pole-ward agricultural expansion, proliferation of life, and less heating costs.

Daily mean temperature is also a better indicator of health/environmental impacts because people, animals, and plants don't have a chance to chance to cool down at night, especially in places where it was cooler in the past.

Mean temperatures are not a particularly good indicator. For a simplified example, you could have a year where for half of the year the temperature is 100', and the other half the temperature is 0'. The mean would be 50'. The next year, the temperature is 110' for half the year and -10' for the other half. The mean is still 50'. It is better to look at both maximum and minimum temperatures.

The bottom line is, and remains, that average temps have increased due to increasing ratios of warmer nighttime temps, increasing daily highs, and increasing high minimums. The data shows summer nights have warmed at nearly twice the rate as summer days since records began, but summer days have warmed too. Even though the hottest summer in U.S. history remains 1936 at the height of the Dust Bowl, overall summer average temperatures are now rising at a rate of 1.5°F per century since records began in 1895. Daytime highs have also increased by ~0.7 degrees and nighttime lows have increased by ~1.4 degrees:

Your graph shows exactly what I have been saying which is that the increase in average temperatures is being driven by warm night time lows.

[ron johnson]

Speaking of area, it's also worth pointing out that the chart ron keeps posting, the one that says “Average Daily Maximum Temperature At All Locations In Australia” is actually only 25 locations which excludes vast swaths of the Australian continent. The chart also excludes weather stations that don’t go back to a specific date, excluding most weather stations in the 25 locations so there’s no way ron’s chart is robust.

Green dots are the station locations. The coverage is quite good outside of West Oz where few people live. The important thing is this is consistent long term data that can be compared over time without any confounding variables.

[MultiVerse]

Maybe ron's chart could result in an interesting conversation in a different context but excluding roughly half the Australian continent by reach and 99% of the continent by area and ignoring all of the so called confounding variables is bullshit bordering on deception in this context:

Australia's land temperature has had no warming since the late 1800's

It is deceptive if he knew at the time of his post that increasing temperatures are being driven (in part) by warm nighttime lows.


Also, FWIW, I think the person from Iowa described seasonal changes not a comparison with the extreme outlier 1930s Dust Bowl.

[Rideski]

Couple of interesting articles

California community trying to avoid burning
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/featu...dfire-fortress

Who generates what electricity sent where
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019...y-electricity/

[WMD]

Inslee has dropped out. Very few people paid any attention to his proposals. At this point I'd say it's up to the IPCC and the UN to making proposals like that. And even Inslee's proposals don't go far enough--at this point it's going to take massive government investment to develop zero carbon electricity and the utilities alone won't be able to manage it, even with subsidies. Hell, PGE can't even manage to not burn CA down with its 100 year old infrastructure. Of course, if we start talking about the true cost and the massive government led building program people are going to be turned off, but it will take that. Look at what Ron says--yeah, the world as we know it is being destroyed but it's too expensive to save (or something like that). But people might as well know the truth, recycling your cans is not going to stop global warming. There is no easy way to do it in the time left.

Here's another idea--guess how well this one will fly--gasoline rationing, like WWII. Only farmers etc got significant amounts. If we can agree that global warming is an emergency--and that's unlikely--then drastic programs like that are justified.

Inslee may have dropped out but that doesn't mean his plans are no good or useless. He has offered his plans to anyone who wants to follow them, and they lay out the blueprint for the next administration. They actually are comprehensive and do go far enough.

Here is an interesting study: Colorado

"Colorado’s cleanest energy options are also its cheapestNew modeling shows the state can decarbonize — at a savings."

Over the last year or so, energy systems modeler and analyst Christopher Clack, with his team at the energy research outfit Vibrant Clean Energy (VCE), has been taking a close look at what Colorado is capable of in terms of clean energy, and what it might cost. (The research was commissioned by renewable energy developer Community Energy.)...

The third report is out, and it takes on the big question: Can Colorado decarbonize its entire state economy in line with its ambitious goals? (The state’s newly passed climate law sets targets of 50 percent decarbonization by 2030 and 90 percent by 2050.) Can it achieve deep decarbonization and still provide reliable, affordable power?


Spoiler: Yes, it can.


The world may be a raging dumpster fire, but Colorado has the potential to be an island of sanity, moving toward a cleaner, cheaper, healthier energy system in a way that benefits all state residents. Let’s take a look at the paper.


Three scenarios for Colorado, and the cleanest is the cheapest
VCE modeled three scenarios through 2040, using conservative technology cost assumptions and minimizing the import of energy from other states and the need for new transmission infrastructure:


Business as usual (BAU) keeps all active coal plants running;
Retire coal pushes all active coal plants into retirement but otherwise lets the electricity sector evolve according to current economics (a mix of wind, solar, and natural gas); and
Deep decarbonization retires all coal, drives down emissions in the power sector by expanding wind and solar and minimizing natural gas, and electrifies transport (80 percent EVs), space and water heating (60 percent heat pumps), and other sectors. (It also builds 200 MW worth of hydrogen-producing facilities in the state, to help get at the more difficult-to-decarbonize sectors.)

The first and perhaps most important thing to note is that in all scenarios, Coloradans receive a stable, reliable supply of electricity. There is no technical barrier to a mostly decarbonized power sector; the state’s grid is perfectly capable of handling it.


The second thing to note is that in all scenarios, average retail electricity rates decline over time, but they decline most and fastest through deep decarbonization. Cleaner energy benefits all Colorado ratepayers, not just those who have an EV or solar panels.


The most expensive option for Colorado consumers is to keep the coal plants running.

The total savings between 2018 and 2040 for transportation are estimated to be $15.6 billion (real 2017$), which equates to a saving of almost $680 million per year. The total savings between 2018 and 2040 for heating are estimated to be $9.7 billion, which amounts to an annualized saving of $424 million. Therefore, the combined savings are $25.3 billion by 2040, at an annual average amount of approximately $1 billion.

Overall reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the deep decarbonization scenario, VCE writes, “are more than 36% by 2025, 56% by 2030 and 69% by 2040 compared with 2005 levels.” Cumulatively through 2040, 1 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions would be avoided. That would put Colorado in line with its legislative goals.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-envir...ctric-vehicles

[Bunion 2020]

Of course, if we start talking about the true cost and the massive government led building program people are going to be turned off, but it will take that. Look at what Ron says--yeah, the world as we know it is being destroyed but it's too expensive to save (or something like that).

Unfortunately a lot of people, and not just Americans feel that way. Things will have to get a LOT worse in order to begin what you propose.

I have my own business that involves enviro consulting for Construction.

I have to visit sites every week, 9 Months out of the year and every other week 3 Months out of the year. Those are the EPA rules I must operate under.

That means I have to drive myself to the sites. In August of last year I bought a new Truck, it gets 17-21 MPG and It now has 33K on it.

If Nissan or someone else offered a Electric vehicle I would be on board with that but my current truck has a life span of at least 5 more years. If someone told me I had to scrap it with no buyout or incentives I would tell them to fuck off.

Someone mentioned Gas Rationing, instead of that a stiff carbon tax is that kind of incentive. I wouldn't be thrilled but there would be those incentives.

[dan_pdx]

A lot of this is theory/conjecture and I'm not going to get into a battle about the effects of warmer winter temperatures on disease carrying pests, but surely you must recognize that there must be some beneficial aspects of warmer winter temperatures like longer growing seasons, pole-ward agricultural expansion, proliferation of life, and less heating costs.

Sure, like the pine beetle habitat extending north into Canada?
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/2...w-jersey-maine

Nice to see that you are finally being honest (we didn't know you had it in you!) and acknowledging warmer winter temperatures. I guess this must be one of the strategies they teach you at shill camp: deny deny deny, then say "global warming is actually great for us!"

[ron johnson]

Maybe ron's chart could result in an interesting conversation in a different context but excluding roughly half the Australian continent by reach and 99% of the continent by area and ignoring all of the so called confounding variables is bullshit bordering on deception in this context:

If you want to make this argument then we can pretty much throw out the entirety of the southern hemisphere temperature record pre mid 1900's as well as much of Russia and Asia. It's the best we have.

It is deceptive if he knew at the time of his post that increasing temperatures are being driven (in part) by warm nighttime lows.

You still haven't provided the post number of that quote so I can see what the conversation was about.

Also, FWIW, I think the person from Iowa described seasonal changes not a comparison with the extreme outlier 1930s Dust Bowl.

I'm not talking about just the 1930's, recent decades have been trending toward less extreme heat and drought in Iowa. If you want to see the data it's in the video:

[ron johnson]

Sure, like the pine beetle habitat extending north into Canada?
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/2...w-jersey-maine

Nice to see that you are finally being honest (we didn't know you had it in you!) and acknowledging warmer winter temperatures. I guess this must be one of the strategies they teach you at shill camp: deny deny deny, then say "global warming is actually great for us!"

For me to be finally acknowledging warmer winter temperatures, that means I must have not been acknowledging warmer winter temperatures. Where have I done that? If you were honest you would find it, but like the rest of the trolls you will make your unfounded call-outs and never back them up.

[Bunion 2020]

If you were honest you would find it, but like the rest of the trolls you will make your unfounded call-outs and never back them up.

Pure comedy Gold!

[dan_pdx]

For me to be finally acknowledging warmer winter temperatures, that means I must have not been acknowledging warmer winter temperatures. Where have I done that? If you were honest you would find it, but like the rest of the trolls you will make your unfounded call-outs and never back them up.

I declare, Ronald, it's like you don't remember typing this: "Australia's land temperature has had no warming since the late 1800's". Forgetfulness is a little concerning, are you under an unusual amount of stress?

[dan_pdx]

For me to be finally acknowledging warmer winter temperatures, that means I must have not been acknowledging warmer winter temperatures. Where have I done that? If you were honest you would find it, but like the rest of the trolls you will make your unfounded call-outs and never back them up.

I declare Ronald, it's like you don't remember typing this: "Australia's land temperature has had no warming since the late 1800's". Forgetful much?

[rideit]

Ok, Ron, can you answer this question with one word.
Has the global mean temperature (either land or sea)
Risen
Or
Fallen
In the last 100 years?

[BobMc]

Considering that nearly all your activity on this forum is in this thread feel free to FO>FO.

I went through the six pages of his posts listed, one post was not in this thread. One. He's obviously a shill, not sure why people are even arguing with him.

[ron johnson]

I declare, Ronald, it's like you don't remember typing this: "Australia's land temperature has had no warming since the late 1800's". Forgetfulness is a little concerning, are you under an unusual amount of stress?

MV hasn't provided the post number of that quote so I don't know the context it was brought up in, but I am almost certainly referring to maximum temperatures... the type of temperature people are thinking about when they talk about global warming.

[ron johnson]

Ok, Ron, can you answer this question with one word.
Has the global mean temperature (either land or sea)
Risen
Or
Fallen
In the last 100 years?

Risen

Not sure why you think this is significant as I've never said otherwise, and have posted numerous graphs showing it.

[rideit]

Then just what the fuck are you on about in this thread, anyway?

[ron johnson]

I went through the six pages of his posts listed, one post was not in this thread. One. He's obviously a shill, not sure why people are even arguing with him.

That one post makes it pretty unlikely I am a shill. On top of all the other stuff like knowing the inside jokes change for a nickel/PM Rontele, posting a picture of my snowboards, and knowing that there was a climate change thread in the main board over the spring/summer that went dead.

[ron johnson]

Then just what the fuck are you on about in this thread, anyway?

Mostly about the imaginary consensus, media propaganda, lack of extreme weather, and shortfalls of green energy.

[rideit]

isnt That what bots do these days, a little forum research?

[rideit]

Mostly about the imaginary consensus, media propaganda, lack of extreme weather, and shortfalls of green energy.

Like I said, you are looking at the trees, and ignoring the forest.

[dan_pdx]

Mostly about the imaginary consensus, media propaganda, lack of extreme weather, and shortfalls of green energy.

The consensus is not imaginary, as has been well-demonstrated here. Media propaganda? Are you talking about the Fox / Koch-funded kind, or what the rest of the country refers to as "science journalism"?

As far as lack of extreme weather, it seems the science disagrees with you (I know this is par for the course for you - you would argue that the sky isn't blue, as you've proven at length).
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0321130859.htm

Shortfalls of green energy is pretty asinine. 100 years ago, we might have had a shortfall of electrical generation capability. You know what we did? We built more. Is there a reason why you believe that's not possible today?