Global Warming Skepticism

A place to discuss major environment issues, from the Gulf oil spill to extreme floods.

Moderators: Indaswamp, Dep6, Smackaduck

Re: Global Warming Skepticism

Postby Indaswamp » Sun Apr 16, 2017 7:47 pm

...and you are an engineer for criss sake, you should know better!
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 70267
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Remove Advertisements

DuckHuntingChat.com
Advertisement

Re: Global Warming Skepticism

Postby dudejcb » Sun Apr 16, 2017 8:10 pm

Indaswamp wrote:...and you are an engineer for criss sake, you should know better!
Yes, it's a little disappointing in detail and explanation but luckily my engineering training lead me to the conclusion ... but the takeaway is that no one will go unscathed as climate really turns on. I got the salient part.

And about engineers. There are a lot of them have the degree, but not the intellect to apply what they've learned. This goes for may professions and disciplines ... and as you know ... I have my many failings too. But in my defense: at least I'm still trying really hard to understand and be a better man (with frequent lapses and setbacks), and won't give up till I die. Trying is what counts. That, and how one handles disappointments, defeats, setbacks.

What would life be without challenges? Boring.
"Chill Dude, these guys think the public pool and playground are communist plots"s - BBD2
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
Republicans take care of big money, for big money takes care of them ~ Will Rogers
E PLURIBUS UNUM
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 6380
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: Global Warming Skepticism

Postby Indaswamp » Sun Apr 16, 2017 8:28 pm

dudejcb wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:...and you are an engineer for criss sake, you should know better!
Yes, it's a little disappointing in detail and explanation but luckily my engineering training lead me to the conclusion ... but the takeaway is that no one will go unscathed as climate really turns on. I got the salient part.

And about engineers. There are a lot of them have the degree, but not the intellect to apply what they've learned. This goes for may professions and disciplines ... and as you know ... I have my many failings too. But in my defense: at least I'm still trying really hard to understand and be a better man (with frequent lapses and setbacks), and won't give up till I die. Trying is what counts. That, and how one handles disappointments, defeats, setbacks.

What would life be without challenges? Boring.

For one, I do not believe 'man made global warming' is significant enough to be concerned with. The carbon credit scam is just another way to fleece everyone and has zero impact on emissions. You know the saying right-follow the money. And IF I am wrong, which I doubt, do you have an answer for China? How are you going to get them on board to curb emissions? Good luck with that.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 70267
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Global Warming Skepticism

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Apr 17, 2017 5:14 am

dudejcb wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:...and you are an engineer for criss sake, you should know better!
Yes, it's a little disappointing in detail and explanation but luckily my engineering training lead me to the conclusion ... but the takeaway is that no one will go unscathed as climate really turns on. I got the salient part.

And about engineers. There are a lot of them have the degree, but not the intellect to apply what they've learned. This goes for may professions and disciplines ... and as you know ... I have my many failings too. But in my defense: at least I'm still trying really hard to understand and be a better man (with frequent lapses and setbacks), and won't give up till I die. Trying is what counts. That, and how one handles disappointments, defeats, setbacks.

What would life be without challenges? Boring.

The uncertainty in what will happen is very large. The carbon sensitive is quite uncertain. This is not me, but the experts.

As I have said a huge number of times. I have no doubt that the earth is warmer than it otherwise would be.

The effects of that are not certain. Not even the average delta T is known that well. This is not me, but the true believers presenting the results at that MIT workshop I linked.

These precise graphs are great PR, but bogus science, but pretty pictures sell.

Then on top of the uncertainty of the delta T are the actual effects of that and they are not instantaneous, but will be dynamic and complex. And again very uncertain. Some good which the religion cannot bear, but science must. And some bad. And the relative importance and even in many cases whether good or bad is subjective.

As one attendee put it at the workshop, we are askind Americans to spend a lot today to protect grand children in Indonesia. Meaning Americans are wealthy and will adapt. Indonesians are poor and will stay that way.

My first big problem. I don't want the third world to remain that way. Far more lives will be saved by rooting out corruption and protecting the rights of the individual. Not the right to use government to take stuff from other people because you need it. The right to keep all your stuff no matter what and government stopping those that try to take it no matter what. Among other things to build the industrious, frugal, and moral society necessary for a prosperous civil society that values every individual as well as the environment. Venezuelans don't care about the environment now any more than illegal aliens or urban criminals or ...

The uncertainty is why I believe we must take it seriously. That means serious of the consequences of both doing nothing and anything we propose to do. I see know sign of seriousness of the proposals. Nota serious assessment of their likely impacts. Most are WILDLY insufficient.

The scale of what be done is scary if you are serious. Most don't comprehend the scale. Those that do seem to fall into the hide it from the public. An estimate of an astronomical carbon tax being necessary was presented. Start small, but it will have to get huge to hold the 2C line. Others were in effect proposing to risk war with China to force them to comply.

I know how unserious most like Obama are and how scary others are. Nothing good is likely will come from government in this regard and a lot of destruction is possible if certain factions get in charge.
In those ignorant times, it was not understood, that the profits of merchants are a subject not taxable directly; or that the final payment of all such taxes must fall, with a considerable overcharge, upon the consumers.
Adam Smith
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 20729
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Global Warming Skepticism

Postby dudejcb » Mon Apr 17, 2017 12:14 pm

Spinner,

there may be uncertainty in your mind, but there is wide consensus and agreement on the negative impacts of accelerated global climate change ... despite outliers like yourself.

This is a deadly serous issue you should be able to understand given your science and engineering (physics) training. Maybe because you don't have children it's easier for you to ignore the implications, maybe not. In any event, this is real, it won't go away easily, and the longer we dither with our heads in the sand doing nothing, the worse it will be, and our children and theirs will pay the price for our inaction. The height of irresponsibility in my mind.
"Chill Dude, these guys think the public pool and playground are communist plots"s - BBD2
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
Republicans take care of big money, for big money takes care of them ~ Will Rogers
E PLURIBUS UNUM
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 6380
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: Global Warming Skepticism

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Apr 17, 2017 2:56 pm

dudejcb wrote:there may be uncertainty in your mind, but there is wide consensus and agreement on the negative impacts of accelerated global climate change ... despite outliers like yourself.

:rolleyes:

The Climate Challenge: Toward a Low-Carbon Energy Economy: Ronald Prinn (MIT)

Session 1-1 covered the significant capabilities in predictive modeling that allow one to estimate
effect of future economies and technologies, and obtaining climate and air pollution consequences.
The MIT Integrated Global System Model (IGSM), consisting of both the Emission Projection and
Policy Analysis (EPPA) and Earth System Model (MESM) components, was used to model three
scenarios in order to determine the magnitude and pace at which low-and zero-carbon energy
policies need to be implemented.


2C is the magic number they pick as the target.

What is the CO2 equivalent for that?

They don't know. It is somewhere between we passed it to we have a pretty long way to go.

But there are consensus on the effects of what we don't know :rolleyes:

Again, the cost of carbon rises and is about triple the cost of
the low sensitivity case, rising from $150 to $4200 per ton

$4,200 per ton carbon tax may be required.

What do you think the impact of a $4,200 per ton carbon tax are?

Even for the case were the temperature rise per unit of equivalent CO2 is the least.
The price of carbon (in 2010
dollars) for this case rises from $50 to $1400 per ton in 2100.

This is a massive tax that will have massive disruptive effects to society. Assuming that you can impose it the world over and people do not simply cheat. After all, we certain can trust the Russians and the Chinese to charge this tax on all industries in their country.

Read the report I linked. The uncertainties are HUGE. Not just in how much CO2 will lead to a 2C rise, but in every aspect of the problem even if you are 100% sure that even with a $4,200 per ton carbon tax is still not too high.

I believe I read that $25 per ton is 21 cents per gallon. SO $4,200 per ton would be $35.28 per gallon. Yep, that kind of massive disruption is not without economic risks. No worry about food or other vital shortages as we screw up, I mean make more efficient centuries of development by massive taxes by such huge disruptions.
In those ignorant times, it was not understood, that the profits of merchants are a subject not taxable directly; or that the final payment of all such taxes must fall, with a considerable overcharge, upon the consumers.
Adam Smith
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 20729
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Global Warming Skepticism

Postby dudejcb » Tue Apr 18, 2017 2:20 pm

Former Idaho Supreme Court Justice Op Ed...for deniers everywhere to consider...

During Earth Day week, here’s a nonscientific approach to climate change
By Jim Jones

There has been so much heated public discussion about climate change that it is hard for a person without scientific training to make heads or tails of the issue. Sure, some of the science is not subject to dispute. It is certain that burning fossil fuels, like coal, releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. A simple lab test will show that increasing the amount of a greenhouse gas in an air sample will increase the heat-holding capacity of the sample. And, we know that 2016 was the Earth’s hottest year on record, eclipsing the 2015 record, which beat the 2014 record. So, our planet is getting warmer, but is human activity contributing to the warm-up? That is the real question.

Those who believe that human activity is warming the atmosphere point out that 97 percent of climate scientists say human-caused climate change is happening. However, the skeptics point out that the other 3 percent disagree. The believers say that virtually all of the world leaders support their position. The skeptics counter that two important world leaders, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, agree with them. It makes it hard for a person to decide which side is right.

The skeptics argue that global warming is the result of natural causes like volcanoes and forest fires. The scientific community says that natural causes do produce some greenhouse gasses but that the dramatic increase in carbon dioxide releases from human industry in recent decades has driven the warming trend. They say that billions of tons of carbon dioxide are released into Earth’s atmosphere each year from fossil fuels and industry, including about 35 billion tons in 2015.

The 97 percent of scientists say the oceans are warming, which results in more violent weather; that the oceans are becoming more acidic, which endangers fish habitat and seafood production; that polar ice and glaciers are melting at an alarming rate, which will result in rising ocean levels, which will endanger coastal cities; that changing weather patterns will cause widespread drought and consequent mass starvation and population migration in underdeveloped regions of the world; that military planners consider climate change as a serious threat to national security and global order because of conflict over scarcer water and foodstuffs; that forested areas will suffer more destructive fires; that these climate change effects are increasing and irreversible; and that immediate action is necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to keep things from getting even worse. The 3 percent of scientists say this would all happen anyway so just learn to adjust.

So, what does a reasonable person do? Like any other problem, it seems best to rely on the people who are knowledgeable about the issue. I would not ask a financial adviser to diagnose an illness or take my car to an ice cream shop for repairs.

And, I would put more faith in a consensus opinion of experts, rather than a minority position. If I had a serious illness and 97 percent of the specialists said I would surely die without undergoing a certain treatment, while 3 percent dissented, I think any reasonable person would go with the majority. Even if I discounted the opinions of half or two-thirds of the 97 percent I would not go with the 3 percent because the stakes are too high. While this is not a particularly scientific approach, it seems to make common sense. When knowledgeable experts tell us that the failure to take action to combat climate change will be catastrophic for life on this planet, does it make sense to ignore them and do nothing?

Jim Jones, who retired as chief justice of the Idaho Supreme Court in January, is a frequent contributor to the Statesman Opinion pages.

Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/opinion/readers-opinion/article145149924.html#storylink=cpy
"Chill Dude, these guys think the public pool and playground are communist plots"s - BBD2
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
Republicans take care of big money, for big money takes care of them ~ Will Rogers
E PLURIBUS UNUM
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 6380
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: Global Warming Skepticism

Postby Indaswamp » Tue Apr 18, 2017 2:33 pm

:lol3:
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 70267
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Global Warming Skepticism

Postby Indaswamp » Tue Apr 18, 2017 2:49 pm

Your "97% of scientists consensus" is bogus and has been debunked numerous times. That piece is total crap.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 70267
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Global Warming Skepticism

Postby dudejcb » Tue Apr 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Indaswamp wrote:Your "97% of scientists consensus" is bogus and has been debunked numerous times. That piece is total crap.

Not my numbers. That article I shared was written by a retired Idaho Supreme Court Justice. You're laughing (in the dark), but he makes a good common sense argument, that someone living in low-lying country might do well to consider if not heed.
"Chill Dude, these guys think the public pool and playground are communist plots"s - BBD2
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
Republicans take care of big money, for big money takes care of them ~ Will Rogers
E PLURIBUS UNUM
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 6380
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: Global Warming Skepticism

Postby SpinnerMan » Tue Apr 18, 2017 4:00 pm

dudejcb wrote:for deniers everywhere to consider

You do understand I am not a denier.

I believe the earth is absolutely warmer than it otherwise would be because of the burning of fossil fuel and other greenhouse gas releases from human activities.

But, has anyone EVER persuaded another person by calling them deniers :huh: If you want to harden someone's position, that is EXACTLY how you do it :thumbsup:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People

Fundamental Techniques in Handling People
1. Don't criticize, condemn, or complain. Human nature does not like to admit fault. When people are criticized or humiliated, they rarely respond well and will often become defensive and resent their critic. To handle people well, we must never criticize, condemn or complain because it will never result in the behavior we desire.


So you violated the most common sense rule there is in the very first line.

You do that all the time.

If you just want to argue, that is what you want to do.

If however, you are serious about trying to influence people, massive failure.

This just made me laugh.

dudejcb wrote:Former Idaho Supreme Court Justice
dudejcb wrote: for a person without scientific training to make heads or tails of the issue.
Like a lawyer :lol3:

But then he goes on sayihg "don't let my lack of scientific training stop me from talking down to you."

The 97 percent of scientists say the oceans are warming, which results in more violent weather; that the oceans are becoming more acidic, which endangers fish habitat and seafood production; that polar ice and glaciers are melting at an alarming rate, which will result in rising ocean levels, which will endanger coastal cities; that changing weather patterns will cause widespread drought and consequent mass starvation and population migration in underdeveloped regions of the world; that military planners consider climate change as a serious threat to national security and global order because of conflict over scarcer water and foodstuffs; that forested areas will suffer more destructive fires; that these climate change effects are increasing and irreversible; and that immediate action is necessary to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to keep things from getting even worse. The 3 percent of scientists say this would all happen anyway so just learn to adjust.

More violent weather is easy to deal with as people are wealthier.

How much loss of life occurs in Florida when it is hit by a massive hurricane? Almost none. Lots of property damage because there is a lot of very expensive property there, but in terms of a human toll. Virtually none.

Go to a third world country and the death toll is massive. Greater prosperity saves a massive number of lives. Incompetent government, and that is what Katrina was, is what cost all the lives in Katrina. That and the massive poverty that exists in New Orleans. People without the resources or educations to plan ahead to simply leave. Hurricanes give plenty of warning. I've moved out of the way on multiple occasions.

"forested areas will suffer more destructive fires" you live out west. Most of the big fires are terrible management of the forests and brush land. Again, this is something we can manage and must manage.

But my point, accepting all of this goes toward the negative side of the range of possibilities, the cost, the risk, all that is necessary to prevent it poses greater human risk, greater human suffering, and greater challenges.

We make make all the water we need for a price. And why are there all these water shortages anyways? What goes up must come down. Evaporation from the oceans will increase as the temperature rises and the surface area expands. There will be without a doubt MORE rain on the planet. But I know, it will either be floods or droughts. Change is always bad. This whole fear and pestilence nonsense. Remember the UNEP or whatever the UN group was predicted this would happened like a decade ago, but don't worry it will happen :thumbsup:

We need to bring prosperity to the third world. That would save wildly more lives than the worst case scenarios for global warming. Look at the massive humanitarian crisis in Syria. We will never force the world to comply with the scale of what is required. [huge]I would love to prevent it.[/huge] Not because I fear the doomsday scenario that you have in your head. I think life is good and why take the risk. If the cost were zero, I'd take it without a thought and be very happy that we eliminated all concerns in this regard. Call it fear of the unknown if you like. A rational fear when things are pretty damned good.

But the cost is not zero. It is MASSIVE. It could cause almost every single thing. It absolutely could cause massive famines as have happened throughout history when governments have disrupted the economy. It absolutely could cause war. It could cause horrible things. How far do we go if China cheats? War? Trade war? Just call them bad names?

The scale is beyond most people's comprehension.

The current annual demand for energy in the U.S. is around the equivalent of 1,000 GW-yr of electrical generation. I prefer looking at it this way. Usually, the conversion is to equivalent tons of oil or quads. I like these units because they make it easy to understand.

A typical large commercial nuclear reactor will produce 1 GW-yr of electricity per year. We currently produce around 90 GW-yr from around 100 reactors (0.9 per but the older ones are smaller and the newer ones are a little bigger). We can easily put 6 to 8 reactors on a site. So it requires the equivalent of 1,000 reactors and between 100 and 500 sites in the U.S. Between 2 and 10 sites in the average state.

A large wind turbines, is around 0.002 GWe peak capacity and will likely only produce about 1/3rd or less than that peak capacity on average, so that is around 0.0007 GWe-yr per wind turbine. That means 1,500,000 turbines, 30,000 in the average state. There is also one huge problem with intermittent power sources. In general we need them to be nearly 100% reliable and in the case of wind, they are only 30%. Nuclear plants are 90%. You have to include all the resources (energy storage) to get from 30% to near 100%. Obviously not exactly the problem, but the scale of the problem is far greater if your primary source is 30% reliable versus 90%. So there is a massive energy storage network associated with large scale intermittent systems. Today they simply run primarily on natural gas and when the wind happens to be blowing they dial back the natural gas. Not an acceptable solution in a low carbon future. Just for reference, there are currently the equivalent of 41,000 wind turbines of this scale. The massive disruption of land is absurd. The massive amount of resources invested in the structures to generate and store. The cost when including the investment to match the 30% supply with the 100% demand is extremely expensive and just doesn't seem likely to change. Storing electrical energy is damned expensive. Lots of people working on it and I pray for a practically free solution, but the densities and inefficiencies and the material costs just seem to be a huge problem. Pumped storage works great, but how many more valleys you want to flood? And what about us in the midwest without a lot of valleys?

Not saying that the world should be all this or that. It should be an optimum mix. Everything has its place and everything has a place where it is a terrible idea.

Now a big part of that equivalent is that transportation doesn't run well on electricity. Planes will never fly on batteries and they will never have nuclear reactors. Cargo vessels certainly could be nuclear power. Never battery powered. Regardless we need to replace oil. We need biofuel. Incredible amounts of that. This simply does not exist. I am actually much more optimistic about this than solving the problems with diffuse intermittent energy sources. But it is a massive and likely incredibly expensive problem.

And this is just the U.S. we have to do this then entire world over and I hope the rest of the world comes up to our quality of life as well as ours continuing to grow.

That 1,000 is just the U.S. and just today. If we raise all the millions of Americans out of poverty and up to the current average, that is a big increase in demand. Even with the most optimistic assumptions about energy efficiency, this is likely to grow a lot.

If the whole world comes to the U.S. standard, we need the equivalent of 35,000,000 large commercial wind turbines world wide, but only 23,000 nuclear reactors on as few as 3,000 sites.

These are massive transformations of massive infrastructures that have been developed literally over centuries in many cases when we talk about the agriculture industry and a century when we talk the energy infrastructure.

We can really, really, really :censored: things up if we are not careful. Look at how California nearly collapsed its electricity industry when it reregulated it very foolishly. They are currently working towards another huge problem with forcing too much intermittent power on the grid for no signficant reduction in carbon because they are forcing the nuclear out of the market and natural gas will take its place. Right now subsidized wind power means natural gas power systems. They are the "back up" that gets you from that 30% to 100% you need. Nuclear goes bankrupt in those markets with high wind and solar when there is no where near enough storage.
In those ignorant times, it was not understood, that the profits of merchants are a subject not taxable directly; or that the final payment of all such taxes must fall, with a considerable overcharge, upon the consumers.
Adam Smith
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 20729
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Global Warming Skepticism

Postby Indaswamp » Tue Apr 18, 2017 4:07 pm

dudejcb wrote:
Indaswamp wrote:Your "97% of scientists consensus" is bogus and has been debunked numerous times. That piece is total crap.

Not my numbers.

Yet you posted the article and believe the numbers to be true.

That article I shared was written by a retired Idaho Supreme Court Justice.

Another reason to laugh. Pure appeal to authority. How much science background does this Judge have?

You're laughing (in the dark), but he makes a good common sense argument, that someone living in low-lying country might do well to consider if not heed.

See above.... I laugh at hysteria, and that is exactly what those pushing this agenda are. BTW, I'm of the same mind as spinnerman on this issue.

Also, you have conveniently side stepped the issue of China. How do you propose to get them on board? Bomb them into submission?
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 70267
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Global Warming Skepticism

Postby dudejcb » Tue Apr 18, 2017 10:31 pm

I posted the article because I thought some might find it interesting. Again, I've overestimated the natural curiosity around here, and willing to entertain others' thought.

Okay Spinner: you're not a denier. What can you tell us about the notion of the Hydrogen Economy, other than there are lots of obstacles to overcome?

I know for a fact that several large retailers (Lowe's) are exchanging their electric and fuel driven materials handling equipment at their distribution centers with fuel cells fueled by hydrogen, saving lots of energy. If we can produce hydrogen from renewable sources I think it would be step toward sustainability. Imagine: fuel cells are about 98% efficient converting hydrogen to DC power; an inverter would be about 97% efficient converting DC to AC; for and overall use efficiency of (0.97 x0.97 =) 94 percent. Way higher than thermal generation around 33%, or 70% with combined cycle.

(Spinner, please help me think this through and correct me as needed. this is off the top of my head, using a sometimes porous memory... and I think I'm missing something. Could really use your expertise.)
"Chill Dude, these guys think the public pool and playground are communist plots"s - BBD2
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
Republicans take care of big money, for big money takes care of them ~ Will Rogers
E PLURIBUS UNUM
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 6380
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: Global Warming Skepticism

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Apr 19, 2017 6:32 am

dudejcb wrote:Okay Spinner: you're not a denier. What can you tell us about the notion of the Hydrogen Economy, other than there are lots of obstacles to overcome?

What do you want to know?

I believe if we figure out how to produce affordable hydrogen from nuclear or less likely the focused heat solar it will be used as it is used today. Commercial markets exist for hydrogen. So we have one already. It will be used to get more gallons of gasoline from a barrel of crude oil.

Hydrogen is produced from natural gas. You can't "save" energy. Hydrogen like electricity is a way to convert a primary energy to a more useful form. The goal of course is to allow the use of a different primary energy. Solar or nuclear instead of coal. Natural gas instead of crude oil is a benefit as is done today. As far as Lowes, my guess if they could not advertise this then they would not do it. It is marketing to appeal to people like you and not a pure bottom line decision.

Self driving cars will be a huge part of the solution. It solves the big battery problems. When the battery needs recharged. The car just goes to a warehouse. The robot takes out the dead battery, puts in a charged one, and out the door and back to work. Efficient use of the high capital investment and it becomes so cheap that owning two cars makes no sense for getting around.

The problem is converting nuclear or solar to hydrogen. It either requires very high temperatures or very low efficiency for using electricity from a windmill or as an intermediate step in nuclear or solar.

The nice thing, unlike electricity, you can envision remote production and transport. The intermittent issue is now just an economic issue and not a grid stability, reliability problem.

A huge amount of effort has been invested in try to make it at a reasonable cost. Production is where there are big challenges if you want to dissociate water and not natural gas.
In those ignorant times, it was not understood, that the profits of merchants are a subject not taxable directly; or that the final payment of all such taxes must fall, with a considerable overcharge, upon the consumers.
Adam Smith
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 20729
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Global Warming Skepticism

Postby D Comeaux » Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:43 am

Could anything change Dotson's mind on climate change? Only a very specific scientist.
"If he was 500 years old, and he told me it's changed, I would probably believe him," Dotson says. "But in my lifetime, I didn't see any change."


http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/20/us/louisiana-climate-change-skeptics/index.html
User avatar
D Comeaux
hunter
 
Posts: 4339
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2012 4:48 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Global Warming Skepticism

Postby Indaswamp » Tue Apr 25, 2017 10:59 pm

Psst...hey Dude:
Former Energy Department Undersecretary Steven Koonin told The Wall Street Journal Monday that bureaucrats within former President Barack Obama’s administration spun scientific data to manipulate public opinion.

What you saw coming out of the press releases about climate data, climate analysis, was, I’d say, misleading, sometimes just wrong,” Koonin said, referring to elements within the Obama administration he said were responsible for manipulating climate data.


Koonin is not the only one claiming wrongdoing. House lawmakers with the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, for instance, recently jumpstarted an investigation into NOAA after a whistleblower said agency scientists rushed a landmark global warming study to influence policymakers.

Koonin, who served under Obama from 2009 to 2011, went on to lament the politicization of science suggested that the ethos should be to “tell it like it is. You’re a scientist and it is your responsibility to put the facts on the table.”


Told ya so, been saying this for YEARS! :hi: :hi: :hi:
http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/24/former-obama-official-says-climate-data-was-often-misleading-and-wrong/

There is no direct evidence that increased CO2 levels impact temperature in the real world. None. What. So. Ever.
The Cajun 7 Course Meal; 1 lb. of boudin and a six pack of Abita beer.

Save the Marsh, Eat a Nutria!

Never fart in your waders, it'll give you WORTS.
User avatar
Indaswamp
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 70267
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 8:40 pm
Location: South Louisiana

Re: Global Warming Skepticism

Postby SpinnerMan » Sat May 06, 2017 6:40 am

This is exactly what I am skeptical of and I would hope all serious people are, but I think this insanity is more pervasive than we would like to admit.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donna-brazile-democratic-national-committee_us_5824cb95e4b0ddd4fe7954e8
“Why should we trust you as chair to lead us through this?” he asked, according to two people in the room. “You backed a flawed candidate, and your friend [former DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz] plotted through this to support your own gain and yourself.”

Some DNC staffers started to boo and some told him to sit down. Brazile began to answer, but Zach had more to say.

“You are part of the problem,” he continued, blaming Brazile for clearing the path for Trump’s victory by siding with Clinton early on. “You and your friends will die of old age and I’m going to die from climate change. You and your friends let this happen, which is going to cut 40 years off my life expectancy.”

This is truly insane. This idiot is so insane that he is screaming at Brazile that global warming is going to kill him in the next 20 years. :censored: nuts. And this is a guy that is a DNC staffer.

Like the slob hunters that we all know how they discredit far beyond their small numbers. It is these nutjobs that discredit all far beyond their numbers. Unless they are laughed out of their positions, there is no hope of working with them or anyone that uses them.

This I think is some psychological disorder to prevent open minded discussion of complex issues. If disaster is certain, there is no reason to even consider the arguments of those with different priorities, values, and opinions. It justifies you doing anything you want and you are saving the world from the NAZIs.

This is pretty well articulate of my opinion.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/climate-editors-have-a-meltdown-1493766186
“So what” is the most important question of all. So what if human activity is causing some measure of climate change if voters and politicians are unwilling to assume the costs (possibly hugely disproportionate to any benefit) of altering the outcome of the normal evolution of energy markets and energy technology.

Even liberals have noticed that climate advocacy has morphed into a religion, unwilling to deal honestly with uncertainty or questions of cost and benefit. Climate apoplexy, like many single-issue obsessions, is now a form of entertainment for exercised minorities, allowing them to vent personal qualities that in most contexts they would be required to suppress.
In those ignorant times, it was not understood, that the profits of merchants are a subject not taxable directly; or that the final payment of all such taxes must fall, with a considerable overcharge, upon the consumers.
Adam Smith
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 20729
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Declining Sea Ice...good and bad

Postby Alaska_Skeeter » Sat May 06, 2017 8:05 am

No one can deny the steady substantial decline in arctic sea ice since the 1979s due to warming.

With more open water in the fall, interior Alaska has had longer and warmer falls.
In the 1990s I was lucky to hunt ducks until the end of September before the marshes froze.
1992 was an extreme with marsh freeze-up the second week of September, now
the marshes don't freeze until mid-October.

In the 1990s there was typically enough snow for snowmaching/mushing by mid October,
now I'm training retrievers until the end of November due to lack of snow or low snow.

It's not all good...moose season runs Sept 11-25 and I hunt the last ten days.
In the 1990s those would be frosty hunts, now I have to swat mosquitoes and
make sure the meat cools quickly and head into town after a few days of harvesting a bull,
instead of staying in camp for the ten days with cold meat bags.

Based on spruce tree-ring data, interior Alaska has been experiencing the warmest summers
in the past 200 years.

With warmer summers are large wildfires.
Big wildfire years were 2004,2005,2009,2013,2015.
The good is post-fire moose habitat!
The bad are weeks of smoke making it difficult to stay in shape running
and packing the in mountains getting ready for sheep hunting in August.
Alaska_Skeeter
hunter
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:06 pm
Location: interior Alaska

Re: Global Warming Skepticism

Postby dudejcb » Sat May 06, 2017 8:19 am

Not bad Spinner. But two things with regard to accelerated climate change:

First, all "movements" (if you will) have their share of followers that exhibit a certain religious zeal beyond, and perhaps void of, logic. So you're using a broad brush to discount many good thinkers with legit POV's and legit science. But the nature of science is to constantly question your conclusions ... a good thing, but not seeing much, if any, of that in the denier crowd.

Second, back when I was in school taking hydrology, it was very rare to see one-inch of rainfall in an hour. Now we're seeing 4, 5, 10-inch dumps in an hour. Science teaches that warmer air can hold more moisture. That's proven. So why is it not true that those dying in extreme flooding these days are not, perhaps, victims of climate change, even though drowning is the proximate cause?

Third: your tag line is wrong. Tax rates were much higher in the fifties and sixties ... the good old days Trump's cap messages alludes to ... when our government was spending "bigly" on a national scale on a number of public improvement areas, and the multiplier effect of that spending floated almost everyone's boat, except for minorities of course.

We cannot shrink to greatness. Ayn Rand was a selfish bitch, whom Gore Vidal had this to say about:
“Ayn Rand's 'philosophy' is nearly perfect in its immorality, which makes the size of her audience all the more ominous and symptomatic as we enter a curious new phase in our society.... To justify and extol human greed and egotism is to my mind not only immoral, but evil.”
"Chill Dude, these guys think the public pool and playground are communist plots"s - BBD2
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
Republicans take care of big money, for big money takes care of them ~ Will Rogers
E PLURIBUS UNUM
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 6380
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: Global Warming Skepticism

Postby SpinnerMan » Sat May 06, 2017 8:34 am

And no one can deny that this nutjob DNC staffer is not going to die in 20 years from global warming :fingerhead: :fingerhead: :fingerhead: :fingerhead:

You can have warming and not have catastrophe :thumbsup:

Yet some insist on denying warming when really they are really denying catastrophe.

Others insist on denying that it may not be catastrophic as if that denies warming.

And then further, accepting the net impact of warming is negative

What are the net impacts of preventing it.

Those that are so sure warming will be a catastrophe seem in complete denial of any harm whatsoever of the cost of preventing it.

It seems like you either must be an economics denier or a warming denier.

Warming and preventing it both have potential consequences. But to admit this unbelievably obvious truth is to be hated by both sides which are in denial.

dudejcb wrote:Second, back when I was in school taking hydrology
Back when I took hydrology at the graduate level as well as all the other graduate level environmental science and engineering courses to satisfy my environmental engineering minor for my PhD, human behavior, land use, human behavior, ... it was complicated.

dudejcb wrote:So why is it not true that those dying in extreme flooding these days are not, perhaps, victims of climate change, even though drowning is the proximate cause?
Do you have the historic numbers? My guess is as a result of wealth a smaller fraction of a larger population are dying in the U.S. If there are 10 times as many people, if 10 times as many die, that is the same. If 5 times as many die, that is progress. The individual risk is 50%.

How about places that get less water than is optimum? More rain is a good thing :thumbsup:

But why are risks of normal ordinary things so much less today than at the beginning of the industrial revolution. Progress has value. To retard that progress, which is 100% what happens with imposed rationing of carbon emissions, will cause harm. The question is which is less harmful. Both have their costs (financial, and otherwise) and both have their benefits (essentially flipping the sign).

Given my graduate school studies and the focus of most of my work for the last 20 years, I find it hard to see how the extreme high cost that would be imposed based on today's technology would be even close to offset by the benefits in the worst case for global warming. However, I am working to change that equation by trying to reduce the cost of low carbon alternatives. Not so much for the low carbon, but because of all the other harm caused by the alternatives.
In those ignorant times, it was not understood, that the profits of merchants are a subject not taxable directly; or that the final payment of all such taxes must fall, with a considerable overcharge, upon the consumers.
Adam Smith
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 20729
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Declining Sea Ice...good and bad

Postby Alaska_Skeeter » Sat May 06, 2017 8:54 am

Alaska_Skeeter wrote:No one can deny the steady substantial decline in arctic sea ice since the 1979s due to warming.

With more open water in the fall, interior Alaska has had longer and warmer falls.
In the 1990s I was lucky to hunt ducks until the end of September before the marshes froze.
1992 was an extreme with marsh freeze-up the second week of September, now
the marshes don't freeze until mid-October.

In the 1990s there was typically enough snow for snowmaching/mushing by mid October,
now I'm training retrievers until the end of November due to lack of snow or low snow.

It's not all good...moose season runs Sept 11-25 and I hunt the last ten days.
In the 1990s those would be frosty hunts, now I have to swat mosquitoes and
make sure the meat cools quickly and head into town after a few days of harvesting a bull,
instead of staying in camp for the ten days with cold meat bags.

Based on spruce tree-ring data, interior Alaska has been experiencing the warmest summers
in the past 200 years.

With warmer summers are large wildfires.
Big wildfire years were 2004,2005,2009,2013,2015.
The good is post-fire moose habitat!
The bad are weeks of smoke making it difficult to stay in shape running
and packing the in mountains getting ready for sheep hunting in August.


Other consequences of declining sea ice are increased coastal erosion in Alaska.
Sea ice reduces the fetch of coastal storms, effectively acting as a buffer especially in early winter storms.

Another consequence of significant warming in Alaska is thawing permafrost,
which occurs when the mean annual temperature exceeds 0 degrees C.
The cost associated with thawing permafrost is substantial due to infrastructure (buildings, roads).
Alaska_Skeeter
hunter
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:06 pm
Location: interior Alaska

Re: Global Warming Skepticism

Postby SpinnerMan » Sat May 06, 2017 9:29 am

Alaska_Skeeter wrote:The cost associated with thawing permafrost is substantial due to infrastructure (buildings, roads).

The cost associated with preventing it are astronomical.

There are no good easy answers. Not even close.
In those ignorant times, it was not understood, that the profits of merchants are a subject not taxable directly; or that the final payment of all such taxes must fall, with a considerable overcharge, upon the consumers.
Adam Smith
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 20729
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Global Warming Skepticism

Postby dudejcb » Sat May 06, 2017 9:43 am

Climate change remediation costs are largely related to making industry more efficient, less carbon dependent (technology transfer) and competitive in the global market, and providing jobs here at home. You don't seem understand the approach ... we're not talking about building sea walls.

Spinner: don't go elitist on me with your graduate studies crap. Knowledge needs native intelligence/intellect to become wisdom. I've done actual work in the field, with some our our nation's largest corporations, that trumps any classwork. BTW: I was one of only a few nationwide, invited to a workshop in Washington DC several years ago, because I was good at what I do. You can find my name (Jeff Brooks) on the acknowledgements page here: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/manufacturing/pdfs/implementation_guidebook.pdf

Prior to leaving SoCal and the Save Energy Now program at EERE, worked with Raytheon, Lockheed, General Dynamics, and others. Also was a consultant working for Booz Allen, and Tetra Tech ... doing the same type work for 35 years. I know a thing or two too.
"Chill Dude, these guys think the public pool and playground are communist plots"s - BBD2
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
Republicans take care of big money, for big money takes care of them ~ Will Rogers
E PLURIBUS UNUM
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 6380
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: Declining Sea Ice...good and bad

Postby Alaska_Skeeter » Sat May 06, 2017 10:22 am

Alaska_Skeeter wrote:
Alaska_Skeeter wrote:No one can deny the steady substantial decline in arctic sea ice since the 1979s due to warming.

With more open water in the fall, interior Alaska has had longer and warmer falls.
In the 1990s I was lucky to hunt ducks until the end of September before the marshes froze.
1992 was an extreme with marsh freeze-up the second week of September, now
the marshes don't freeze until mid-October.

In the 1990s there was typically enough snow for snowmaching/mushing by mid October,
now I'm training retrievers until the end of November due to lack of snow or low snow.

It's not all good...moose season runs Sept 11-25 and I hunt the last ten days.
In the 1990s those would be frosty hunts, now I have to swat mosquitoes and
make sure the meat cools quickly and head into town after a few days of harvesting a bull,
instead of staying in camp for the ten days with cold meat bags.

Based on spruce tree-ring data, interior Alaska has been experiencing the warmest summers
in the past 200 years.

With warmer summers are large wildfires.
Big wildfire years were 2004,2005,2009,2013,2015.
The good is post-fire moose habitat!
The bad are weeks of smoke making it difficult to stay in shape running
and packing the in mountains getting ready for sheep hunting in August.


Other consequences of declining sea ice are increased coastal erosion in Alaska.
Sea ice reduces the fetch of coastal storms, effectively acting as a buffer especially in early winter storms.

Another consequence of significant warming in Alaska is thawing permafrost,
which occurs when the mean annual temperature exceeds 0 degrees C.
The cost associated with thawing permafrost is substantial due to infrastructure (buildings, roads).


Climate warming evidence is abundant in Alaska.
Costs and benefits both occur with climate warming.
Alaska_Skeeter
hunter
 
Posts: 129
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 10:06 pm
Location: interior Alaska

Re: Global Warming Skepticism

Postby SpinnerMan » Sat May 06, 2017 12:10 pm

dudejcb wrote:Climate change remediation costs are largely related to making industry more efficient, less carbon dependent (technology transfer) and competitive in the global market, and providing jobs here at home. You don't seem understand the approach ... we're not talking about building sea walls.

YOU do not understand. It is not about making industry more efficient or less carbon dependent. It is about virtually eliminating carbon emissions. Not 10% improvement, not 20%. We are talking about complete transformation of the entire energy system WORLDWIDE.

The scale of new generation capacity required is massive even with the most optimistic views of efficiency.

And as you well know, when things become more efficient, they become more valuable. More valuable at lower cost (more efficient) increases demand. So even if you get 20% more efficient, you do not reduce demand by 20%.

dudejcb wrote:don't go elitist on me with your graduate studies crap.

I am mocking your appeal to authority.

dudejcb wrote:back when I was in school taking hydrology

Appeals to authority annoy me. This is not your area of expertise, so why the appeal to authority.

Plus back when you were in school they didn't have doppler radar. So we have to be careful when much improved methods are used to measure things. Rainfall rates are highly variable within a storm with localized areas of far greater rates that would be hard to detect without doppler radar. I don't know if you are getting good data or something we just couldn't measure accurately before doppler radar could see these things within a storm. The physics have not changed and the temperature has not risen anywhere near enough to imply we have 4 times as much is real is laughable.


dudejcb wrote:Tax rates were much higher in the fifties and sixties

BTW, you know this is not true. It is not the marginal rate, but what is actually collected. The more loopholes there are the less relevant the marginal rate is. I'd much rather pay 90% of 10% of my income than 20% on 80%.

Image

dudejcb wrote:the multiplier effect of that spending floated almost everyone's boat

What is the multiplier on the money that was taken from the economy? This idea that government is generally more efficient is absurd. There are of course certain things that only they can do and they should. The federal highway system was a great thing, but it's done. Now it is just maintenance. Absolutely that was a positive investment that was more efficient. The same with the dams and other waterway infrastructure. Things of broad general value to society not captured by private investors. Those things are still good to do. The multiplier is a little higher than the multiplier of the money taken from society.

However, that is not what we do today. It is corruption, corruption, corruption. The multiplier is far lower than the money taken from society. Wealth is destroyed and it drags down everyone's boat.

dudejcb wrote:Prior to leaving SoCal and the Save Energy Now program at EERE, worked with Raytheon, Lockheed, General Dynamics, and others. Also was a consultant working for Booz Allen, and Tetra Tech ... doing the same type work for 35 years. I know a thing or two too

More appeals to authority. So you want my resume now. Never said you don't know a thing or two. You work on efficiency. I work on the issues of transforming the world wide energy system for the better and have done so for about 20 years. We can't save enough energy to solve the problem or even really make much of a dent. We need a massive amount of low carbon energy. Nuclear freaks people out and can't help with transportation. Wind and solar are extremely expensive when you include all the costs to convert the unreliable supply into a highly reliable one and they can't help with transportation either.

The costs are out of this world based on what works today. Miracles may happen. Lots of people working on them, but who knows.
In those ignorant times, it was not understood, that the profits of merchants are a subject not taxable directly; or that the final payment of all such taxes must fall, with a considerable overcharge, upon the consumers.
Adam Smith
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 20729
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

PreviousNext

Return to Major Environmental Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest