What Climate Wars Did To Science

[baller7345]

39 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Let's switch over to renewable energy and find out.  If it turns out they were wrong, then so what?  The air is still cleaner, and we rely less on importing of oil.

What is the downside?

The typical answer I get when I ask the very same question is that they are too expensive.  Either that or someone goes into full denial mode, but usually someone who is against switching or trying to switch to renewable points directly too cost.  I disagree as I feel that if given the resources to develop the technologies renewable would begin to outstrip conventional fuels quicker than people think.

Though to some people, my degree in environmental science makes me too biased towards one side....

[baller7345]

1 hour ago, newtogolf said:

Which fact?

That the temperature is increasing? I agree with that, the graphic accurately depicts the temperature increase, even if the numbers are slightly off, the trend is increasing.  

That fossil fuels are the major cause of the temperature increase?  That's where I question it's a fact.  

During the same period that we're seeing temperature increases we experienced population explosions, reduction of rain forests and other forests, severe forest fires and increase in production of fossil fuel emissions.  

Severe forest fires are an effect of climate change, not a cause.  The forest fires you hear about on the news are getting worse due to severe droughts caused by climate change.

The reduction of the rain forests definitely have an effect as it reduces the earth's natural ability to converted carbon dioxide to oxygen and water, and this is a huge environmental issue.

Finally since burning fossil fuels does emit large amounts of CO2, and if we look at are neighbors we can see what an atmosphere that is mostly CO2 does to you.  " The atmosphere of Venus is the layer of gases surrounding Venus. It is composed primarily of carbon dioxide and is much denser and hotter than that of Earth. The temperature at the surface is 740 K (467 °C, 872 °F), and the pressure is 93 bar (9.3 MPa) (Atmosphere of Venus - Wikipedia)."  As we continue to pump large amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere the percentage of CO2 will increase pushing other closer and closer to Venus (yes I know I'm exaggerating, as it would take a very long time to reach that level of greenhouse effect).

The simple fact is we know burning fossil fuels emits CO2, we know that a planet with an atmosphere that is mostly CO2 experiences an extreme greenhouse effect.  As we push further and further past maximum sustainable yeild for human population (thank you technology) we will require more and more energy, which with current methods will require more and more fossil fuels, which means more and more CO2 emissions, which means a higher concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere over time....I think the correlation is quite clear.

Edited September 15, 2016 by baller7345

[Ernest Jones]

24 minutes ago, baller7345 said:

Though to some people, my degree in environmental science makes me too biased towards one side....

And likely makes you a dirty, red commie too!

5 minutes ago, baller7345 said:

Severe forest fires are an effect of climate change, not a cause.  The forest fires you hear about on the news are getting worse due to severe droughts caused by climate change.

The reduction of the rain forests definitely have an effect as it reduces the earth's natural ability to converted carbon dioxide to oxygen and water, but this is a huge environmental issue.

Finally since burning fossil fuels does emit large amounts of CO2, and if we look at are neighbors we can see what an atmosphere that is mostly CO2 does to you.  " The atmosphere of Venus is the layer of gases surrounding Venus. It is composed primarily of carbon dioxide and is much denser and hotter than that of Earth. The temperature at the surface is 740 K (467 °C, 872 °F), and the pressure is 93 bar (9.3 MPa) (Atmosphere of Venus - Wikipedia)."  As we continue to pump large amounts of CO2 into our atmosphere the percentage of CO2 will increase pushing other closer and closer to Venus (yes I know I'm exaggerating, as it would take a very long time to reach that level of greenhouse effect).

The simple fact is we know burning fossil fuels emits CO2, we know that a planet with an atmosphere that is mostly CO2 experiences an extreme greenhouse effect.  As we push further and further past maximum sustainable yeild for human population (thank you technology) we will require more and more energy, which with current methods will require more and more fossil fuels, which means more and more CO2 emissions, which means a higher concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere over time....I think the correlation is quite clear.

See, I knew it! Dirty commie!

[Fourputt]

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

Let's switch over to renewable energy and find out.  If it turns out they were wrong, then so what?  The air is still cleaner, and we rely less on importing of oil.

What is the downside?

Renewable energy technology is not yet ready to substitute for coal, oil and gas.  At this point in time it is expensive and inefficient.  It can supplement traditional energy sources, but that's all it is capable of right now.  To convert totally  to such an idea would be disastrous. 

[Gunther]

3 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

The second quote I posted was the second to last line of the entire piece. ;)

What do you and @newtogolf think about the graph that I tried to post and that Steven added for me?

 

No opinion, no spin, just a line that changes direction rapidly in the very recent past.

My initial reaction to the chart is that it's probably inaccurate.  Everything I've read states that it's not really possible to chart real temps from millions of years ago.  Rather, they're estimations based on ice and rock layers and such. And, there are other scientists who would put together a much more volatile chart than the one here.  Having said that, I cannot definitely dispute it because I'd have to study it against other data.

I'm not opposed to renewables by any stretch of the imagination, never have been.  I am opposed to the government fraud that accompanies the obsession around it, from lying to the public to outright theft of taxpayer dollars to fund fake "green" companies. I think the whole thing is a government power and money grab.  To some extent, @Dave2512 is correct, in order for renewable energy to truly get some purchase, it has to happen organically and that means depoliticizing it.

[newtogolf]

Renewable energy will be great when it's ready but thus far it's limited and expensive.  I'll be happy to consider an electric car when they offer the comfort, reliability and convenience of gas powered cars.  I will expect charging stations where every gas station is located on major interstate highways and for charging to take no longer than it takes to pump a tank full of gas.  

Ironic that at least here in the North East, fossil fuel burning power plants will be used to generate the power to charge my renewable energy vehicle, so once everyone is driving electric cars, the demand of electricity will go up as well as the need for more fossil fuel burning power plants, unless of course the government forces some nuclear power plants into the areas.  

[JonMA1]

6 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Renewable energy will be great when it's ready but thus far it's limited and expensive.  I'll be happy to consider an electric car when they offer the comfort, reliability and convenience of gas powered cars.  I will expect charging stations where every gas station is located on major interstate highways and for charging to take no longer than it takes to pump a tank full of gas.  

Ironic that at least here in the North East, fossil fuel burning power plants will be used to generate the power to charge my renewable energy vehicle, so once everyone is driving electric cars, the demand of electricity will go up as well as the need for more fossil fuel burning power plants, unless of course the government forces some nuclear power plants into the areas.  

Not that this adds much to the conversation, but Tesla recently opened a charging system in a small town up here in Northern Michigan. I thought it was odd, but at the same time was encouraged that things were moving in that direction.

The station has probably 10 "pumps". Surprisingly, I see one or two cars charging every Saturday morning when I do my weekly grocery shopping.

2 hours ago, baller7345 said:

The typical answer I get when I ask the very same question is that they are too expensive.  Either that or someone goes into full denial mode, but usually someone who is against switching or trying to switch to renewable points directly too cost.  I disagree as I feel that if given the resources to develop the technologies renewable would begin to outstrip conventional fuels quicker than people think.

Though to some people, my degree in environmental science makes me too biased towards one side....

As far as home heating, what effect does burning wood or wood pellets have towards greenhouse emissions? I realize it releases carbon, but one argument I read claims carbon is released anyway during wood decomposition - just at a much slower rate. Is that total BS?

I didn't choose to go with this type of heat because of the environment but have always wondered what effect it has when compared to propane or natural gas heat.

[newtogolf]

16 minutes ago, JonMA1 said:

Not that this adds much to the conversation, but Tesla recently opened a charging system in a small town up here in Northern Michigan. I thought it was odd, but at the same time was encouraged that things were moving in that direction.

The station has probably 10 "pumps". Surprisingly, I see one or two cars charging every Saturday morning when I do my weekly grocery shopping.

Tesla is also installing at least one super charging station on the NJ Turnpike and one on the Garden State Parkway, but I believe they will only be for Tesla Model S owners.  

I am sure they will eventually get there and when that time comes I'll buy a Tesla (if they are still in business) or whatever car is comparable at that time.  I've driven in a Tesla Model S, nice car and very fast but it takes an hour to super charge after 275 miles, that doesn't work for me.  

[baller7345]

19 minutes ago, JonMA1 said:

As far as home heating, what effect does burning wood or wood pellets have towards greenhouse emissions? I realize it releases carbon, but one argument I read claims carbon is released anyway during wood decomposition - just at a much slower rate. Is that total BS?

I didn't choose to go with this type of heat because of the environment but have always wondered what effect it has when compared to propane or natural gas heat.

Burning wood isn't completely carbon neutral, but compared to fossil fuels it's pretty close.

" Burning fossil fuels such as coal, gas and oil releases their stored carbon into the air as CO₂. These resources took millions of years to create, but we are burning them up within a few centuries – and at a far faster rate than the global carbon cycle can cope with. In contrast burning wood is largely carbon neutral, with the CO₂ absorbed as young trees grow compensating for that released by burning. " Forestry Commission Climate Change

With that said, I could never see this as a true solution as if we all convert to wood burning then we run into a massive clear cutting issue simply due to numbers.

Electric heat would be the cleanest possibility, but only after we get some advances in solar panels (in both manufacturing them and their effeciencies).

To be perfectly honest I quite like @newtogolf  suggestion of nuclear power.  I know it has a very bad reputation, but it's clean and generally safe.  Perhaps it's my inexperience with meltdowns (aside from the one caused in Japan after the tsunami), but nuclear power has never been that scary too me.

Edited September 15, 2016 by baller7345

[newtogolf]

4 minutes ago, baller7345 said:

To be perfectly honest I quite like @newtogolf suggestion of nuclear power.  I know it has a very bad reputation, but it's clean and generally safe.  Perhaps it's my inexperience with meltdown's (aside from the one caused in Japan after the tusnami), but nuclear power has never been that scary too me.

If we're going to do this, then nuclear makes the most sense.  We also need to get China and India to stop building coal burning power plants faster than we take ours offline.  

[Dave2512]

Big opportunity for the US to not only lead by example but set the standard and market. 

My office is ten good drives from the local Vestas plant. The rail moving the props a long putt from my desk. Impressive stuff and one of the biggest employers in the town, some of my customers working there are very well paid. 

[Golfingdad]

1 hour ago, Gunther said:

My initial reaction to the chart is that it's probably inaccurate.  Everything I've read states that it's not really possible to chart real temps from millions of years ago.

The chart only goes back 22,000 years.

[baller7345]

24 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

I am sure they will eventually get there and when that time comes I'll buy a Tesla (if they are still in business) or whatever car is comparable at that time.  I've driven in a Tesla Model S, nice car and very fast but it takes an hour to super charge after 275 miles, that doesn't work for me.

Give it 10 years (maybe less) and they'll have it.  Considering that when I was in high school (graduated 07) the idea of a purely electric car was borderline silly as the range was horrible and the charge time was...well....slow.

I don't know if the lower end cars (think Chevy Spark) will be to the grand touring stage then, but Tesla will have something to meet your needs by then, I'd almost guarantee it.

Edited September 15, 2016 by baller7345

[Buckeyebowman]

On 7/16/2015 at 9:35 AM, saevel25 said:

 

Go Amish?

Hell, that's no good! You're forgetting about the horse and cow farts!

[Buckeyebowman]

30 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

If we're going to do this, then nuclear makes the most sense.  We also need to get China and India to stop building coal burning power plants faster than we take ours offline.  

Well said, sir! The outright paranoia and hysteria over nuke power drives me right up the wall! They used to give tours of nuke plants in France. You could even go look at the core! They used to give those tours until they were invaded by Islamofascists who turned entire Arrondissements around Paris into kill zones where even the army is afraid to set foot!

The real topper was Hillaryous's recent TV ad about clean energy in which she says the world leaders will be the US, Germany or China! CHINA??!!! China is the world leader in dirty energy. It wasn't that long ago when China was opening a new coal fired generating plant every week or two!

Wind and solar energy are coming along, but are far less efficient than any other source of power that we currently have. "Hey, all we have to do is carpet an entire township in solar panels or wind turbines, and we can power a couple of decent sized neighborhoods!"

 

[Strandly]

I don't know if the climate is changing but I wouldn't be surprised.  The spin of the planet is slowing, the moon is drifting away from the Earth, and the sun is expected to burn out eventually.  Why wouldn't the weather change too?

My single biggest complaint with the climate change dilemma is how the possibility that a warming planet might end up benefiting us is absolutely 100% ignored.  The only end I see discussed is disaster, every single time.  It would be one thing if there were legitimate reasons (perhaps a small scale example) to believe only bad things would happen but there's not even that, it's just a foregone conclusion that everything and everyone will die and that's it.

I know humans are fearful of change and will kill just about anything that is foreign to them first and ask questions later but it seems to have gone to a whole new level with the climate nonsense.  In fact, I don't even pay much attention to the climate debate because of the human fear factor and because it's so poorly argued all around.

You've got a group of people looking at a couple hundred years of climate records for a planet that is supposedly billions of years old crying the sky is falling, and you've got another group of people burying their head in the sand with regard to the matter, and then you have the possibility of a warmer planet benefiting us being completely ignored.

All this tells me is that nobody knows what the hell is going on.

If folks want to continue investigating it then that's fine but until the consequences of a changing climate become clear, and they will given enough time, I don't plan to spend a lot of time and energy thinking about it.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Strandly

[Gunther]

8 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

The chart only goes back 22,000 years.

Lol, hadn't quite studied it with my glasses on.  

[Spanky]

18 minutes ago, Gunther said:

Lol, hadn't quite studied it with my glasses on.  

Atypical?