Page 29 of 65 FirstFirst ... 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 ... LastLast
Results 701 to 725 of 1616
  1. #701
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    309
    I can't believe how much you guys appeal to authority and refuse to even try to use your brains. Are you guys able to get dressed in the morning without your mom laying out your clothes the night before?

  2. #702
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    10,776
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    I can't believe how much you guys appeal to authority and refuse to even try to use your brains. Are you guys able to get dressed in the morning without your mom laying out your clothes the night before?
    That's very nice. My mom is dead.

  3. #703
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,141
    Katharine Hayhoe: 'A thermometer is not liberal or conservative'

    "The award-winning atmospheric scientist on the urgency of the climate crisis and why people are her biggest hope"

    This year has hit home how climate change loads the dice against us by taking naturally occurring weather events and amplifying them. We now have attribution studies that show how much more likely or stronger extreme weather events have become as a result of human emissions. For example, wildfires in the western US now burn nearly twice the area they would without climate change, and almost 40% more rain fell during Hurricane Harvey than would have otherwise. So we are really feeling the impacts and know how much humanity is responsible.
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/...st-crisis-hope

  4. #704
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Location
    Jong Kong
    Posts
    49
    Name:  Geological_Timescale.jpg
Views: 154
Size:  86.6 KBName:  395543_1_En_85_Fig1_HTML.gif
Views: 154
Size:  117.8 KB
    Climate change is definitely real and there's no doubt that humans have had an impact. The question is, how much of an impact? What temperature is the Earth "supposed" to be? It is a dynamic system and there will always be extreme fluctuations. Most graphs only show the last 500 years or so, which is very convenient when trying to push the agenda of man made climate change. As you can see by the graphs, large temp swings in short periods of time occurred long before humans started burning fossil fuels. This current warming trend started 20,000 years ago. Unlike previous warming trends, it has actually leveled off instead of spiking.. C02 in the atmosphere also lags behind temp increase... I majored in Environmental Studies for 2 years and my profs were split 50/50 on the effects of man made climate change (to my surprise). Also, my Environmental Economics class came to the conclusion that the most cost effective way to combat global warming was to paint all roads and roofs white... My prof concurred.. This was 3000+ level class. Not a bunch of freshmen..

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DTcJ8BYVAAEULtT.jpg 
Views:	39 
Size:	520.8 KB 
ID:	291463
    I'm from rural MN where temp range over the course of the year is extreme. The amount of energy needed to survive and the style of housing that is required to mitigate these extreme temp swings (while also supporting snow load) is a huge burden (environmentally and economically). If you believe in man made global warming, maybe the question we should be asking is "where are the most energy efficient places for humans to live". Places like rural MN are not very conducive to a single type of alternative energy.. You really need a combination of geothermal, solar and wind. I priced out a system like this for my family's farm and the cost was over $80k (including 3 Tesla batteries) for a 4,000 sq. ft. home, a 1,200 sq. ft. cabin, 4 stall garage (non-heated) and 1,000 sq. ft. barn (non-heated). The property is appraised at $500k for reference... It would have been nearly 100% sustainable with some energy (5%) going back to the grid in summer and some being taken in during the winter (10-20%). The ROI was approximately 12-15 years (depending on future energy costs and weather patterns).

    I also believe that climate change gets shoved to forefront of environmental issues, when the more urgent issues are biomagnification of toxins (especially in the ocean) and the decimation of the global insect population (which is a cornerstone for all living organisms). Insects aren't as cute as polar bears, so the general public doesn't really care (exception is bees).

    If you have facts and logic to change my mind, I'm all ears. Or just shout me down with emotional responses and 500 year graphs...
    "Skiing is the easy part, Carl."

  5. #705
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    309
    WMD must be part of a Russian troll farm or paid by the renewables industry at this point.

  6. #706
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,141
    My mom laid out a great wardrobe for me today. It's half Patagonia! Im ready to go get change for a nickel.

  7. #707
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,076
    Quote Originally Posted by SlyFoxxx View Post
    I majored in Environmental Studies for 2 years and my profs were split 50/50 on the effects of man made climate change (to my surprise). Also, my Environmental Economics class came to the conclusion that the most cost effective way to combat global warming was to paint all roads and roofs white... My prof concurred.. This was 3000+ level class. Not a bunch of freshmen..
    Did you factor in the surface area of the poles and average winter snow coverage versus that of roofs and roads in your analysis along with the negative impact cloud cover has when the roofs and roads are white?


    These folks did


    Effects of Urban Surfaces and White Roofs on Global and Regional Climate

    White roofs reduce summer air conditioning energy demand and change surface albedo. A conversion of rooftops worldwide to white roofs, accounting for their albedo effect only, was calculated to cool population-weighted global temperatures by ~0.02 K but to warm the earth overall by ~0.07 K. Local ground cooling stabilized surface air, reducing sensible and latent heat fluxes and local cloudiness, increasing local surface solar radiation, resulting in local cooling smaller in magnitude than without the cloud reduction. Higher reflection also increased air heating by black and brown carbon in soot. Feedbacks of local changes to the global scale were magnified over high-latitude snow and sea ice, causing a net but highly uncertain warming effect on global climate. The local cooling due to white roofs may reduce or increase energy demand and thus other emissions as well, a factor not accounted for in these simulations. This feedback should be considered in any final assessment of the effects of white roofs on climate


    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  8. #708
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,076
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    I can't believe how much you guys appeal to authority and refuse to even try to use your brains. Are you guys able to get dressed in the morning without your mom laying out your clothes the night before?
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  9. #709
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by SumJongGuy View Post
    The trouble is the tech isn't at a point where it will create a better world. If non carbon energy was as reliable and cost comparable as fossil fuels I'd be all for it.

  10. #710
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    The trouble is the tech isn't at a point where it will create a better world. If non carbon energy was as reliable and cost comparable as fossil fuels I'd be all for it.
    I should probably qualify this statement. If you're one of the ones that think we have 12 years to save the planet, then I suppose you might not agree (I'd still disagree since China, Russia, and co are still going to burn their carbon). But switching to 100% non carbon right now will have a major effect on you, the US economy, the global economy, and everyone else the world when we will have energy prices at 2x? 3x? 5x? 10x? our current levels.

  11. #711
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,141
    "Coal is on the way out’: study finds fossil fuel now pricier than solar or wind
    Around 75% of coal production is more expensive than renewables, with industry out-competed on cost by 2025"

    Around three-quarters of US coal production is now more expensive than solar and wind energy in providing electricity to American households, according to a new study.

    “Even without major policy shift we will continue to see coal retire pretty rapidly,” said Mike O’Boyle, the co-author of the report for Energy Innovation, a renewables analysis firm. “Our analysis shows that we can move a lot faster to replace coal with wind and solar. The fact that so much coal could be retired right now shows we are off the pace.”

    The study’s authors used public financial filings and data from the Energy Information Agency (EIA) to work out the cost of energy from coal plants compared with wind and solar options within a 35-mile radius. They found that 211 gigawatts of current US coal capacity, 74% of the coal fleet, is providing electricity that’s more expensive than wind or solar.

    By 2025 the picture becomes even clearer, with nearly the entire US coal system out-competed on cost by wind and solar, even when factoring in the construction of new wind turbines and solar panels.

    “We’ve seen we are at the ‘coal crossover’ point in many parts of the country but this is actually more widespread than previously thought,” O’Boyle said. “There is a huge potential for wind and solar to replace coal, while saving people money.” Was
    https://www.theguardian.com/environm...s-energy-study

  12. #712
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    11,848
    FWIW, anyone else who frequents the Polyass notice that Cemetheads contributions has slowed to a trickle since Ron joined the forum.

    Just sayin.

  13. #713
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,076
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    The trouble is the tech isn't at a point where it will create a better world. If non carbon energy was as reliable and cost comparable as fossil fuels I'd be all for it.
    So, you'll be all for it when adoption levels facilitate economies of scale which essentially give you no choice but to "be all for it"..
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  14. #714
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    10,776
    Quote Originally Posted by SlyFoxxx View Post
    Name:  Geological_Timescale.jpg
Views: 154
Size:  86.6 KBName:  395543_1_En_85_Fig1_HTML.gif
Views: 154
Size:  117.8 KB
    Climate change is definitely real and there's no doubt that humans have had an impact. The question is, how much of an impact? What temperature is the Earth "supposed" to be? It is a dynamic system and there will always be extreme fluctuations. Most graphs only show the last 500 years or so, which is very convenient when trying to push the agenda of man made climate change. As you can see by the graphs, large temp swings in short periods of time occurred long before humans started burning fossil fuels. This current warming trend started 20,000 years ago. Unlike previous warming trends, it has actually leveled off instead of spiking.. C02 in the atmosphere also lags behind temp increase... I majored in Environmental Studies for 2 years and my profs were split 50/50 on the effects of man made climate change (to my surprise). Also, my Environmental Economics class came to the conclusion that the most cost effective way to combat global warming was to paint all roads and roofs white... My prof concurred.. This was 3000+ level class. Not a bunch of freshmen..

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	DTcJ8BYVAAEULtT.jpg 
Views:	39 
Size:	520.8 KB 
ID:	291463
    I'm from rural MN where temp range over the course of the year is extreme. The amount of energy needed to survive and the style of housing that is required to mitigate these extreme temp swings (while also supporting snow load) is a huge burden (environmentally and economically). If you believe in man made global warming, maybe the question we should be asking is "where are the most energy efficient places for humans to live". Places like rural MN are not very conducive to a single type of alternative energy.. You really need a combination of geothermal, solar and wind. I priced out a system like this for my family's farm and the cost was over $80k (including 3 Tesla batteries) for a 4,000 sq. ft. home, a 1,200 sq. ft. cabin, 4 stall garage (non-heated) and 1,000 sq. ft. barn (non-heated). The property is appraised at $500k for reference... It would have been nearly 100% sustainable with some energy (5%) going back to the grid in summer and some being taken in during the winter (10-20%). The ROI was approximately 12-15 years (depending on future energy costs and weather patterns).

    I also believe that climate change gets shoved to forefront of environmental issues, when the more urgent issues are biomagnification of toxins (especially in the ocean) and the decimation of the global insect population (which is a cornerstone for all living organisms). Insects aren't as cute as polar bears, so the general public doesn't really care (exception is bees).

    If you have facts and logic to change my mind, I'm all ears. Or just shout me down with emotional responses and 500 year graphs...
    all of this is true. Let's be clear--the climate change debate is not about saving the planet; it's about saving the human race, or most of it, as well as the ecosystems we depend on. If we do nothing the planet will survive, new species will evolve, but in the process there will be orders of magnitude more human and animal suffering than there is today, which is plenty. The best argument against nuclear power is that a nuclear catastrophe, or a serious of catastrophes could potentially make the earth uninhabitable by any species for a long long time.

  15. #715
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,141

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

    Xxxxxxxxx

  16. #716
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by SumJongGuy View Post
    So, you'll be all for it when adoption levels facilitate economies of scale which essentially give you no choice but to "be all for it"..
    Yep, trouble is we have a long ways to go with storage and transmission before that type of adoption becomes feasible.

  17. #717
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,076
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Yep, trouble is we have a long ways to with storage and transmission before that type of adoption becomes feasible.
    Yes, Europe is a long way away.. All the way across the Atlantic
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  18. #718
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by SumJongGuy View Post
    Yes, Europe is a long way away.. All the way across the Atlantic
    Are you trying to imply that Germany is a success story?

  19. #719
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The Cone of Uncertainty
    Posts
    46,864
    This is a poliass thread.

  20. #720
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    11,848
    If it wasn't before it just got taken there.

  21. #721
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,809
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    I can't believe how much you guys appeal to authority and refuse to even try to use your brains. Are you guys able to get dressed in the morning without your mom laying out your clothes the night before?
    You're an insufferable cunt

  22. #722
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,603
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kkwiQmGWK4c


    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Quote Originally Posted by Benny Profane View Post
    Keystone is fucking lame. But, deadly.

  23. #723
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,076
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Are you trying to imply that Germany is a success story?
    Did I say "Germany"?
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  24. #724
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    2 hours from anything
    Posts
    7,954

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

    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    How dense can you be? In the top right of your link it says 3.3mm/year. The study I previously linked said 3.1mm/year. Congrats, sea level rise has increased by 2 tenths of a millimeter per year. Ready the sandbags!!
    Quote Originally Posted by neufox47 View Post
    Sea level rise is accelerating. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

    Greenland getting that warm is unusual and getting that warm as frequently as it is is very unusual.

    You dismiss cost projections by saying it doesn’t matter because you don’t live on the coast, oh good I’m sure the economy will be fine!
    This is your problem Ron, you are impossibly dense yet think you are an expert. Let me help you. Again, take a pencil and follow the words slowly and think about their meaning.

    https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
    From the link.

    The first graph is for the satellite data and only goes to the early 1990s, not 1850. During that time the rate of gain is 3.3mm per year, most recently 4mm. The second graph goes back to 1880, that one shows roughly 230mm of rise over 130 years. Now these numbers are kind of big but 230, divided by 130 is 1.75mm. What each graph contains is clearly laid out in the first two paragraphs.

    Sea levels thankfully haven’t risen at a rate of 3.3mm per year for the last 150 years.
    Last edited by neufox47; 08-17-2019 at 09:20 PM.

  25. #725
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    309
    Quote Originally Posted by neufox47 View Post
    This is your problem Ron, you are impossibly dense yet think you are an expert. Let me help you. Again, take a pencil and follow the words slowly and think about their meaning.

    https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/
    From the link.

    The first graph is for the satellite data and only goes to the early 1990s, not 1850. During that time the rate of gain is 3.3mm per year, most recently 4mm. The second graph goes back to 1880, that one shows roughly 230mm of rise over 130 years. Now these numbers are kind of big but 230, divided by 130 is 1.75mm. What each graph contains is clearly laid out in the first two paragraphs.

    Sea levels thankfully haven’t risen at a rate of 3.3mm per year for the last 150 years.
    Okay, I'm following you now. I should have looked at the graphs more closely.

    Congrats to neufox, the only one to be able to refute any point I have made in this thread. (There was a bit of a refutation on my comment that fossil fuel companies are invested in renewables, they are, but the US companies aren't heavily).

    Apologies for the dense comment, I was carrying some frustrations from our previous disagreement.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •