Change is coming, whether you like it or not!

[exoticimports]

Nov 13, 2019 16:57:20 GMT -8 jshuey said:

Nov 12, 2019 7:18:39 GMT -8 Paul K said:

Nov 11, Toronto received 15cm of snow and record cold temperatures are on the way for next couple of days with overnight lows at -14°C and windchill effect around -20°C.
Global warming is not so global. According to scientists melting polar ice is causing polar cold air shift to North American continent and some parts of Russia which will bring colder and longer winters in the future.
Last few summers were colder and with more rainy days.
How long will that last, don’t know but I think is time to migrate some warmer place and enjoy global warming.

One of the major issues, is that too many people confuse weather with climate.....

john

That is true. I think we here know the difference. But when one is freezing to death a little light humor warms the heart.

As far as bush fires, well Americans figured that out decades ago. Supression of naturally occurring fire makes it worse later. But Australia like Kalifornia continues to build up combustible materials because it’s inconvenient to have normal brush clearing fires.

[leptraps]

We can talk about Climate Change, changing weather or any other climate issue, the cause and affect are debatable. However, I do what I can.

My late wife, Ms Betty told me that if I wanted to have a significant impact on air Quality and Polution, I should start my day off by taking "Gasex", a double dose would be a plus....

[exoticimports]

Looked outside this morning. Nope, no warming- business as usual. -12C this morning. Not like The Great Warming Event of 1994, we sailed liquid water on December 4th. Not this year.

On another topic, which I've mentioned in threads about MV and UV lights at night, one can see the density of the forest which backs my lights. It seems that as the forest has matured there is greater leaf material, effectively blocking the bright MV. When I run MV now the whole area is lit up, flooded with light, and I believe there is little penetration into the forest; when an insect does get into the area between the deck (where the light is) and the forest, the intensity of light is too much to draw them in.

[rjb]

Nice sarcasm Jan.
It is the same here. Although the global average temperature may be up 0.06 degrees F from last year, I can’t see it on my thermometer. My backyard isn’t all that global.

Apparently the global climate models were giving essentially the right answers about 50 years ago and with all the refining and added sophistication, they are getting reduced error bars, but they tell the same story- We are in big trouble. When the global average temperature goes up 1 or 2 or 3 degrees C, this is really, really important in many ways.

Although the Leptraps and Exoticimports and Trumps of the world have closed their minds, many younger folk can still listen and think and realize what the future is going to be. It doesn’t look pretty.

Rick

[gaspipe]

Dec 6, 2019 6:51:22 GMT -8 rjb said:

Nice sarcasm Jan.
It is the same here. Although the global average temperature may be up 0.06 degrees F from last year, I can’t see it on my thermometer. My backyard isn’t all that global.

Apparently the global climate models were giving essentially the right answers about 50 years ago and with all the refining and added sophistication, they are getting reduced error bars, but they tell the same story- We are in big trouble. When the global average temperature goes up 1 or 2 or 3 degrees C, this is really, really important in many ways.

Although the Leptraps and Exoticimports and Trumps of the world have closed their minds, many younger folk can still listen and think and realize what the future is going to be. It doesn’t look pretty.

Rick

Climate models are like women’s shoes ; each day look in the closet and see what looks best. Fact is most climate models have been inaccurate. I believe of the 20 or 30 used by the UN the Russian model has been the most accurate. They must have rigged both the election and climate at the same time. Fact is the western world has and is addressing carbon emissions but it’s always glossed over when China and India are brought up. Dumb politicians want to turn the country upside down and break the bank with zero research to show it will have any effect. Heck one relatively small volcanic eruption
would undo trillions of wasted tax payer money.!
There are so many factors ; many unknown that can effect the climate that can cause changes and be completely beyond human control. Yeah I known: control those we can . But show something all this Green Deal BS will even matter . Fact is you can’t. So let’s have the market forces drive the effort . Build me a Ford F-150 to run my business that is electric , costs the same or less , had the same power , same hauling and plowing capabilities and I’ll buy it . I wait with baited breath. Do that and I’ll be on board . But spare me all the models with
incomplete and limited cherry picked data. And most of all spare me the hysterics. Remember the ozone becoming depleted by 1990 ? Huh don’t hear much about that anymore .

[leptraps]

As for Leptraps, I believe without a doubt that man has caused some serious damage to the earth and the atmosphere via two Nuclear Disasters. One in Russia and the other in Japan. And, I think there is more to come. The next Nuclear Disaster will occur in either China or India. I would not be surprised if it kills hundreds of thousands or even several million people. The after affects, say 10 or 20 years after the initial disaster. The loss of life will be immense. And the radio active fallout will contamimate food sources, water supplies and the air we breath.

Imagine a radioactive atmosphere that pours radioactive rain upon the earth. Even if the initial fallout does not get us, the radioactive atmosphere certainly will.

And during this conversation, my "breaking wind" came up, again. That would equate to a teaspoon of water dumped into the Pacific Ocean and caused the oceans level to rise substantially.

[rjb]

Gaspipe believes that the models are not trustworthy. He disagrees with the 10,000+ scientists who actually study global warming. Exoticimports doesn’t trust scientists because they are funded by governments. Those 10,000+ scientists are from many countries, working for many decades under many political regimes. Some were funded by the petroleum industry (like Exxon). Many polls have shown that scientists span the full political ideology range, far left to far right. That tends to be irrelevant to the science. The science process has been successful because it weeds out the errors and fraud that any individual scientist might publish.

We all make a personal choice to guess that the scientists are right or wrong. If you understand science-the methods, the process, the history of how it can fail and get fixed, then you will feel very confident to trust the scientists on this one.

Exoticimports likes to follow the money unless he doesn’t like the results. The petroleum industry set out to confuse the public. The dollars they have spent, company by company are huge and known. All the typical confusion about this topic – “scientists talked about global cooling in the 70’s” “All models are untrustworthy”, “volcanoes” , “the sun cycles” originated many decades ago by the “think tanks” of the oil industry. All the confused arguments were adequately addressed decades ago and are just being recycled. The fossil fuel industry campaign to confuse the public was successful as is evidenced by this discussion. Several very smart people like gaspipe, exoticimports and leptraps are completely wrong about global warming, thanks to the confusion-campaign of the oil industry. The confusion has prevented the world from taking much action, so the future looks much worse than it might have. Tough luck. That’s the way people are.

Rick

[lamprima2]

It seems that we could reduce emission by
connecting leptraps to gaspipe

[exoticimports]

We have some mighty big accusations leveled against me. I never said there is no global warming, nor did I say follow the money except. We have juveniles fabricating my words, and I don't appreciate it.

Unlike virtually all armchair weather warriors, I've actually experienced the king tides on Funafuti and Majuro, sat through hurricanes, and suffered through record high water on the Great Lakes. I don't need some 12 YO twit to tell me about changing weather patterns. Nor do I need a lecture on industry-driven obfuscation; I can talk all day about false information campaigns starting with the Boston Tea Party, running right through the useless bombings of the ball bearing factories of Schweinfurt (thanks, Sweden!), right up to the failure of the S54 motors in the E46 BMW. And I can intelligently talk about government obfuscation, fabrication, and data manipulation ad nauseam.

I have a right- no, a duty- to question what I'm told to believe. Sometimes the "info" is correct, sometimes it's not, and sometimes we'll never know. But it's my right to ask questions; when I get non-answers in return it brings into further question the authenticity of the data. Whether I believe the answer is one way or another, when the answer is avoided it leads me to be suspect, that's all.

Now y'all go on back to YouTube. I'm donning ECWS and Danners and going outside. In the mean time, if I didn't say it, don't report that I did- that's just fake news, and at least in USA it's illegal.

Chuck

[leptraps]

Mother earth has the ability by to recover from most of man's stupidity. However, man's stupidity may result in the end of mankind. The earth will continue to turn and in time will recover. However, Mother Earth has common sence. She will will not make the same mistake twice. That is unless she creates man again and they will all be like me. Extremely intelligent, absolutely charming, well endowed and down right sexy.

That would be a perfect world!!

[gaspipe]

Dec 8, 2019 10:36:47 GMT -8 skandinavisk said:

Armchair warriors or not, supporting the climate change movement is most important. Even something as simple as creating online awareness from your armchair and by the very way you shop, for instance, by choosing responsibly produced products from your local suppliers, is better than doing nothing or even counter the movement.

It is always anyone's choice to ignore this issue.

Now, this is the really funny part; Greta Thunberg is hitting on ALL world governments for their continued total inaction, on the most important ever issue, by demanding action for the future of everything living. Greta Thunberg's faith in governments is flat out zero. Guess what, libertarians has that same flat out zero faith in government! So why is this turned into an issue at all? Like Rick said, the fossil fool industry has been successful in confusing the public, by grooming especially libertarian groups as well as the general public. If anything, both left and right should support the climate change movement by giving government politicians a huge kick in their election-balls by demanding action and change! What a great way for us all to fight self serving government politicians! These days and times is not for letting the fossil fool industry confuse us all. Renewable energy is already much bigger than the fossil fool industry and its a good place to invest your pension funds! The sooner, the better. This is why we do not need Trump and his "clean coal" rhetoric and a return to stone age mining, etc. We do not need a dictator in any government. If we want to see real change, then old, self serving fart politicians like Trump, Clinton, Bolsonaro, Orban or whomever. They all need to be dismissed and their positions taken over by young(er) people that understand that old ways is harmful to everything.

Jan

The more I read posts like this the more delusional you climate extremists sound . Scary people.

[gaspipe]

Opps a volcano erupted in New Zealand . Just think of all climate changing gases that put into the atmosphere ! How many carbon credits do Al Gore and Greta have to buy to offset the eruption? Leptraps can reduce his intake of beans and Iam going to drive my truck less for a few weeks ; that may help.

[exoticimports]

Dec 9, 2019 14:26:02 GMT -8 skandinavisk said:

The whole Mekong delta is disappearing. Here the hint of fake news is that these Asian people are poor and lazy and will do anything for a bowl of rice, because as we all know Vietnamese people are some really lazy commies. They just need some more clean coal from Trump to get their lives straight!



Jan

While I assume this is said in jest, it is neither with foundation nor accurate. There has been no attempt by Trump or USGOV to sell coal to Vietnam. VN has the third largest coal operation in the world, and has yet to source coal from USA. If they did though, it would be cleaner coal than they are sourcing from China.

Who exactly are you accusing of calling the Vietnamese poor and lazy? What is your source?

The disinformation campaign doesn't establish credibility.

I'll just leave this here.

[Paul K]

Mekong delta is sinking also, so it is not only rising sea level which impacts disappearing of delta. The same problem is facing Bangkok. The whole city is sinking faster then the sea level rises. The two are rather different cases of course of sinking, however the final effect is same.

Chuck
Jan was using a sarcasm talking about lazy Vietnamese 😜

[exoticimports]

I love the Vietnamese. Hard working, highly intelligent, trustworthy.

[gaspipe]

Dec 11, 2019 6:15:03 GMT -8 exoticimports said:

I love the Vietnamese. Hard working, highly intelligent, trustworthy.

Whoever Jan is ; he or she ; seems to immediately feel those who have a different opinion on climate change(‘we call it “ seasons” here in New England ) are evil supporters of President Trump or spend our days reading Breitbart news. I believe her disdain for anyone who dares challenge the conclusions of 10,000 “ scientists “ is an obviously ignorant person . Even though, given our degrees, Iam sure many on this forum would definitely qualify as “scientists “. So again if you don’t agree you are berated and given access to Jan’s videos which I guess are supposed to provide incontrovertible proof of the crisis. OK fine except I’ve lived long enough to have seen many incontrovertible claims on climate change never come even close to reality. So ignorant me will go back to eating my boogers and passing gas with Leptraps . And by the way I actually watched one of them and they don’t help the cause.

[rjb]

When I was growing up in a Cleveland suburb, the Cuyahoga river caught on fire. Actually this happened several times but that was a big one. My family liked bass fishing, but we didn’t fish in Lake Erie because you couldn’t eat the catch- too much mercury. They had to stop us from swimming in Lake Erie because so much raw sewage was being dumped it was easy to get sick. People complained about the terrible smog in LA, but on my first visit there my reaction was- this isn’t so bad, you should see Cleveland where it rains sulfuric acid.

All that got fixed. You can eat the fish and swim there and the river never catches fire. People figured out that the dumping of waste, industrial, utilities, exhaust, all of it ruins our lives.

If you build a utility plant now, or start a mining operation you have to plan for funding the cleanup and the removal and straightening up of your operation when you are done decades in the future. If you go bankrupt, you must have set aside the cleanup funds so the taxpayer won’t foot the bill.

When humans started digging fossil fuels out of the ground and burning them, some early scientists in the 1800’s pointed out that the waste CO2 would cause the earth to heat up. If we started this whole thing now, we would realize that we’ve got to set aside the money to clean up the CO2 waste because it will destroy us. The cost of clean up would have been added into the cost of the fuel. Instead we got cheap fuel and we polluted our atmosphere big time.

We cleaned up a lot of the environmental messes from my youth, and we’ll fix this one. The only question is who pays.

I read the chemistry news, and a lot of funding has gone into CO2 sequestration. It looks like several approaches will make it possible to continue the use of fossil fuels with major extraction of the CO2 from the smokestacks and the atmosphere. Eventually the cost of the fuel will reflect this cleanup cost. Who knows the details on how we’ll get there? Not me.
Rick

[Paul K]

The cleanup cost should not be passed onto customers, greedy multimillionaires owners should cover this from there pay-checks. unfortunately corrupted governments can’t make that legislation call it a free market.

[exoticimports]

Dec 15, 2019 11:26:10 GMT -8 Paul K said:

The cleanup cost should not be passed onto customers, greedy multimillionaires owners should cover this from there pay-checks. unfortunately corrupted governments can’t make that legislation call it a free market.

Actually this is a wonderful example of an ecological disaster that the government is wholly in charge of and won’t do ###. Every major rain storm in Toronto, Rochester, and other Great Lakes left wing urban area dumps millions of gallons of raw sewage into the lakes. This of course is illegal. But nobody is arrested, nobody fined, no services discontinued and nothing is fixed. Because it’s government that is fully responsible and wholly at fault.

So why should i trust these idiots at a global scale?

[rjb]

My guess at the way it will be:
So what does the future of Global Climate change look like.
One recent technology involves building a plant. Using a fancy CO2 capture technique to grab CO2 out of the air or cheaper, out of smokestacks. Then pump the CO2 into underground cavities where it can sit for millions of years. This needs energy, and if you got it by burning fossil fuel, it would be no good and really stupid. So you use renewable, solar, wind, tidal, wave or nuclear.

That technology would need about 30,000 plants worldwide (To grab enough CO2 to bring the atmosphere back to before things were warming much), and they already know where the underground storage can be found.

For me, I buy a gallon of gasoline for my car now and I pay the cost of pulling the oil out of the ground, refining it, shipping it to me and it costs maybe $2.50. Other places like Europe often put a big tax on it so maybe $5-$8. I did not pay for the chunk of CO2 my car exhausts when I burn that gallon. There have been estimates of how much more it will cost to include the cleanup of that bit of CO2, but it depends on what approach is used for capturing the CO2. Basically I will have to pay more for the gallon of gas. If my electricity comes from fossil fuel burning, then my electric and my gas bill will go up. Some people say what about India or China, and yes they will only pay if they use fossil fuel. They are both scrambling to switch to renewables like some of the US.

That’s the future. We can whine and gripe all we want. Deny global warming is caused by burning fuel if it makes you feel good, but the science is done. Now we just need the scientists and engineers to develop cheaper ways to solve this crisis. Can’t expect much help from politicians. Although note that all the new technology is funded by our government and our military. We just had a friend visit from Washington DC. He has been a big funding manager for the US air force during his long career. He assures us the military has been aware of how much the climate crisis is going to hurt us and have been looking for a solution for years.

Also you can individually do little things which are more symbolic if it makes you feel better, but eventually we will all pay more for the luxury of burning fossil fuels. Personally I don’t do much symbolic gesturing. Put your energy and money where it will do real good.
Rick

[Adam Cotton]

Well, today they pushed the decisions a year down the road, because they couldn't agree on proposals at the conference in Madrid.

Adam.

[rjb]

Yes, the Madrid conference demonstrated again that progress will be slow. Countries can agree to aim for goals and then change their minds. Countries can fail to reach the goals. Countries can completely refuse to cooperate. When the science/engineers have a clear and affordable solution to the climate problem, it will probably help countries reach an agreement. The longer we take, the harder reversing the problem will be. It will probably take a string of natural disasters to wake up more people before we get going on the solution. Maybe a couple more decades?

A short while back Gaspipe mentioned briefly the Stratosphere Ozone thing that got a lot of attention a couple decades ago.
It has a lot of parallels with Climate Change except it worked out the way it should.

Scientists discovered we humans were destroying the ozone layer which protects us from too much UV light exposure. Some people think it is pretty important for making earth habitable. We were making and releasing lots of CFC chemicals (ChloroFluoroCarbons aka Freons). These last a long time and drift up to the ionosphere and catalyze the destruction of ozone. The “Ozone hole” in the southern hemisphere was growing to where Australia was getting increased UV already.

The Montreal Protocol was an agreement by all nations to ban the production of the CFC’s. We mostly used them for air conditioners and aerosol sprays.

There was resistance by the chemical companies that make CFC’s, but they didn’t get organized like the fossil fuels and start a lying-to-the-public campaign. In the end, the chemical firms all made lots of money by coming up with replacements for the bad freons and selling lots to replace the bad freons.

The stratospheric ozone has been slowly recovering since then. Really a big success story.
In contrast, fixing the CO2 problem has become a political nightmare.


Rick

[rjb]

I plugged in a few numbers to see what we would have to pay extra for our gasoline to cover the cost of pulling the CO2 back out of our air. It looks like estimates range from $24 to $39 for a ton of CO2 and one gallon of gas gives about 20 lbs of CO2. So you could figure on paying an extra 30 cents a gallon to fix the CO2 problem.
This is really crude and depends a lot on how efficient will be the CO2 extraction. For me that would be no big deal but for poorer people who have to drive a long distance to the job, that might be a lot. Years ago, when I think we were paying about $1.50 for a gallon, congress wanted to add a 5 cent tax to the gasoline. The public went hysterical and any congressman wanting to stay in office had to vote it down.
Rick

[jshuey]

Dec 17, 2019 19:32:31 GMT -8 rjb said:

I plugged in a few numbers to see what we would have to pay extra for our gasoline to cover the cost of pulling the CO2 back out of our air. It looks like estimates range from $24 to $39 for a ton of CO2 and one gallon of gas gives about 20 lbs of CO2. So you could figure on paying an extra 30 cents a gallon to fix the CO2 problem.

You math is pretty much spot on. Carbon goes at about +- $30/ton in the California market. This is the amount that future generations subsidize us for releasing that CO2 - only given the time value of money, the costs to mitigate 20lbs of carbon in 30 years will likely be higher than the 30 cents today adjusted for inflation. It's always cheaper to clean up your mess today, rather than expect your kids to clean it up tomorrow.

Superfund clean up costs are a great example. Instead of paying modest fees to proper dispose of pollutants in the past, companies often dumped wastes in ways that they knew were wrong (but saved them money at the time). Later, the costs to clean up the mess are higher and the companies are often long gone, meaning that they successfully passed those costs onward to you and me as tax payers. As a business strategy - it's perfect. Maximize profits today, and pass deferred mitigation costs off to the public at a later date. Essentially we subsidize past bad business behaviors.

And that is what is happening with CO2. We do not pay the full costs associated with burning fossil fuels today, because we're cheapskates and because we know that future generations will pick up the costs and subsidize our behavior.

john

[gaspipe]

Dec 18, 2019 14:02:26 GMT -8 jshuey said:

Dec 17, 2019 19:32:31 GMT -8 rjb said:

I plugged in a few numbers to see what we would have to pay extra for our gasoline to cover the cost of pulling the CO2 back out of our air. It looks like estimates range from $24 to $39 for a ton of CO2 and one gallon of gas gives about 20 lbs of CO2. So you could figure on paying an extra 30 cents a gallon to fix the CO2 problem.

You math is pretty much spot on. Carbon goes at about +- $30/ton in the California market. This is the amount that future generations subsidize us for releasing that CO2 - only given the time value of money, the costs to mitigate 20lbs of carbon in 30 years will likely be higher than the 30 cents today adjusted for inflation. It's always cheaper to clean up your mess today, rather than expect your kids to clean it up tomorrow.

Superfund clean up costs are a great example. Instead of paying modest fees to proper dispose of pollutants in the past, companies often dumped wastes in ways that they knew were wrong (but saved them money at the time). Later, the costs to clean up the mess are higher and the companies are often long gone, meaning that they successfully passed those costs onward to you and me as tax payers. As a business strategy - it's perfect. Maximize profits today, and pass deferred mitigation costs off to the public at a later date. Essentially we subsidize past bad business behaviors.

And that is what is happening with CO2. We do not pay the full costs associated with burning fossil fuels today, because we're cheapskates and because we know that future generations will pick up the costs and subsidize our behavior.

john

My god what nonsense. You can figure all the costs you want. All the money to waste on Green Deals and no one has any clue what if any impact they have because there is no way to factor in the innumerable variables that are involved .