Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Change?"

Communicate with fellow Zoners

Moderators: SkiDork, spanky, Bubba

rogman
Postinator
Posts: 7011
Joined: Mar 27th, '06, 13:33
Location: In a maze of twisty little passages, all alike

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by rogman »

Warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor, thus in general more r*in is predicted as a result of global warming. However the specific effects in specific regions are highly variable. What happens on a macro scale can't really be applied to a specific location. Additionally, the type of droughts your referencing are short term phenomenon, more along the lines of weather than climate.
Image
killyfan
Blue Chatterbox
Posts: 128
Joined: Feb 27th, '17, 09:44

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by killyfan »

rogman wrote:Warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor, thus in general more r*in is predicted as a result of global warming. However the specific effects in specific regions are highly variable. What happens on a macro scale can't really be applied to a specific location. Additionally, the type of droughts your referencing are short term phenomenon, more along the lines of weather than climate.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and agreed. Thanks for explaining how SEB's more narrow-minded view absolutely does not work. Folks need to look at a MUCH BIGGER and SLOWER picture here rather than at one season of good pow in the west or one wet ski season in the east. In SEB's mind, it seems, there could not possibly be climate change because the west had such a great ski season and the polar ice pack is doing well this year.

Here is an older NASA study that gives a broader view of the ice pack situation:

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/na ... ctic-gains

And a report from a few days ago that clearly states that total ice pack is still well below average:

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

We're still losing 2.5% of sea ice per decade. This is not good.
In a world where you can be anything, why not choose to be kind...
Woodsrider
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1377
Joined: Jan 12th, '14, 21:34

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Woodsrider »

Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote:
Woodsrider wrote:
Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote:IS THIS JUST WHAT THE BEDWETTERS PREDICTED??

Thick Arctic ice pack traps boats, triggers rescue operation off Newfoundland

http://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/thick-arctic ... -1.3448987" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Unusually heavy Arctic pack ice has trapped multiple vessels, stymied the fishing season and triggered a high-stakes rescue operation from a sinking ship off Newfoundland.”

Scary how things are now that we have achieved the world Al Gore warned us of.

“Meanwhile, Hodgson said the Coast Guard's icebreakers, which usually aren't required after mid-April, continue to escort commercial vessels and ferries through the thick Arctic pack ice.”

Too much ice for the bears?

“Earlier this week, a polar bear carcass washed ashore on the Avalon Peninsula, sparking concerns about the unusually heavy pack ice and its impact on sea life.”
You may want to read past the headline before claiming this as a denialist victory. This is exactly what was predicted and now you look foolish.
OK. Please find me a consensus scientist posting a prediction of an "unusually heavy arctic ice pack?" by about this year 2017.

...and if ...one of them... predicted this...because the vast majority predicted thinning of arctic sea ice...it was one on the hallmark indicators of "climate change"... then please find me ONE climate event which WAS NOT predicted by a climate scientist.

Climate science seems to be so broadly inclusive, by certain readings, that ANYTHING that happens (warming cooling, floods, droughts) seems to have been predicted! Amazing.

Like this:
U.S. drought reaches record low as r*in reigns
https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/ ... 100971018/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Drought in the U.S. fell to a record low this week, with just 6.1% of the lower 48 states currently experiencing such dry conditions
That's the lowest percentage in the 17-year history of the weekly U.S. Drought Monitor report.

So find where consensus scientists predicted the LOWEST drought conditions in the US EVER recorded...
was this also predicted???

...awaiting your response.
You really need to research before you post about stuff you don't understand. Ask yourself this, why is this pack ice so unusual? Is it climate or weather related? Why do Polar bears come to shore when their food is on the pack ice?
Guy in Shorts
Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome
Posts: 3754
Joined: Mar 29th, '12, 18:27
Location: KMP Island

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Guy in Shorts »

Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote:OK. Please find me a consensus scientist posting a prediction of an "unusually heavy arctic ice pack?" by about this year 2017.
Can we take credit for less vehicle idling in Killington this Winter as the cause of the unusually thick ice pack and declare victory? Would boost my ego to know that I am part of the solution! The Kzone shows how simple solutions can fix climate change. Bravo Zula
If my words did glow with the gold of sunshine.
Woodsrider
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1377
Joined: Jan 12th, '14, 21:34

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Woodsrider »

Guy in Shorts wrote:
Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote:OK. Please find me a consensus scientist posting a prediction of an "unusually heavy arctic ice pack?" by about this year 2017.
Can we take credit for less vehicle idling in Killington this Winter as the cause of the unusually thick ice pack and declare victory? Would boost my ego to know that I am part of the solution! The Kzone shows how simple solutions can fix climate change. Bravo Zula
Since wind is the cause the Kzone blowhards may be able to claim credit. But not less idling.
Sgt Eddy Brewers
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1145
Joined: Aug 24th, '11, 14:57

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Sgt Eddy Brewers »

killyfan wrote:
rogman wrote:Warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor, thus in general more r*in is predicted as a result of global warming. However the specific effects in specific regions are highly variable. What happens on a macro scale can't really be applied to a specific location. Additionally, the type of droughts your referencing are short term phenomenon, more along the lines of weather than climate.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and agreed. Thanks for explaining how SEB's more narrow-minded view absolutely does not work. Folks need to look at a MUCH BIGGER and SLOWER picture here rather than at one season of good pow in the west or one wet ski season in the east. In SEB's mind, it seems, there could not possibly be climate change because the west had such a great ski season and the polar ice pack is doing well this year.

Here is an older NASA study that gives a broader view of the ice pack situation:

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/na ... ctic-gains

And a report from a few days ago that clearly states that total ice pack is still well below average:

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

We're still losing 2.5% of sea ice per decade. This is not good.


Oh My God.

Do you guys follow any of this at all????...how many pages are we into this and you are still shockingly naive about what "the climate science consensus" has been claiming (year after year) and what MY positions on this have, from the absolute onset of this thread, been.

My posts about droughts and ice packs illustrate quite succinctly my point from the beginning. And still Rogman doesn't get it??

Droughts and ice pack are, as has been noted, numerous times. especially by me....the kind of phenomena that climate models cannot predict well...and except for the most insane activist consensus scientists (and there are quite a few), MSM morons and a few posters on this thread, no sane persons CLAIM they can be predicted. Few people are that stupid?

But...the insane activists, MSM morons and a few posters here use weather phenomena as VIRTUAL PROOF that the consensus climate narrative ( burning hydrocarbons increases atmospheric CO2 which absorbs outgoing IR which thus causes the earths climate system to generate an imbalance which will lead to disaster) is correct.

"Look at the terrible droughts"

"look at the diminishing arctic ice pack" etc etc....

"HOW CAN YOU DENY CLIMATE CHANGE?"

Then when I sarcastically mention some weather phenomena that don't fit well into the consensus narrative you shriek

"That's weather not climate"

"You are cherry picking"

"The scientists predicted that....too!!"

I read consensus narratives every day that use weather phenomena to justify their climate theories...a lot of nonsense actually.

Weather will continue to please and frustrate us, as it always has.

Show me a consensus scientist who PUBLISHED a prediction that the US would experience the lowest drought index in history. You won't because... that is a GOOD thing and climate scientists always predict BAD things.

...if not show me a consensus climate scientist that predicted something (anything!!) GOOD coming from "climate change.

...show me ONE that predicted the WONDERFUL climate we have had for the past decade..diminished drought, NO Cat 3 or higher hurricanes for a decade.

...theses are EXCEPTIONAL "weather events" ...HISTORIC actually....and they are GOOD for mankind.

So no consensus scientist predicted them or is even willing to talk about them.

So...darling.... don't try to understand what's going on in my mind....you've got A LOT of catching up to do.
Ski the edges!
Woodsrider
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1377
Joined: Jan 12th, '14, 21:34

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Woodsrider »

Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote:
killyfan wrote:
rogman wrote:Warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor, thus in general more r*in is predicted as a result of global warming. However the specific effects in specific regions are highly variable. What happens on a macro scale can't really be applied to a specific location. Additionally, the type of droughts your referencing are short term phenomenon, more along the lines of weather than climate.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and agreed. Thanks for explaining how SEB's more narrow-minded view absolutely does not work. Folks need to look at a MUCH BIGGER and SLOWER picture here rather than at one season of good pow in the west or one wet ski season in the east. In SEB's mind, it seems, there could not possibly be climate change because the west had such a great ski season and the polar ice pack is doing well this year.

Here is an older NASA study that gives a broader view of the ice pack situation:

https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/na ... ctic-gains

And a report from a few days ago that clearly states that total ice pack is still well below average:

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

We're still losing 2.5% of sea ice per decade. This is not good.


Oh My God.

Do you guys follow any of this at all????...how many pages are we into this and you are still shockingly naive about what "the climate science consensus" has been claiming (year after year) and what MY positions on this have, from the absolute onset of this thread, been.

My posts about droughts and ice packs illustrate quite succinctly my point from the beginning. And still Rogman doesn't get it??

Droughts and ice pack are, as has been noted, numerous times. especially by me....the kind of phenomena that climate models cannot predict well...and except for the most insane activist consensus scientists (and there are quite a few), MSM morons and a few posters on this thread, no sane persons CLAIM they can be predicted. Few people are that stupid?

But...the insane activists, MSM morons and a few posters here use weather phenomena as VIRTUAL PROOF that the consensus climate narrative ( burning hydrocarbons increases atmospheric CO2 which absorbs outgoing IR which thus causes the earths climate system to generate an imbalance which will lead to disaster) is correct.

"Look at the terrible droughts"

"look at the diminishing arctic ice pack" etc etc....

"HOW CAN YOU DENY CLIMATE CHANGE?"

Then when I sarcastically mention some weather phenomena that don't fit well into the consensus narrative you shriek

"That's weather not climate"

"You are cherry picking"

"The scientists predicted that....too!!"

I read consensus narratives every day that use weather phenomena to justify their climate theories...a lot of nonsense actually.

Weather will continue to please and frustrate us, as it always has.

Show me a consensus scientist who PUBLISHED a prediction that the US would experience the lowest drought index in history. You won't because... that is a GOOD thing and climate scientists always predict BAD things.

...if not show me a consensus climate scientist that predicted something (anything!!) GOOD coming from "climate change.

...show me ONE that predicted the WONDERFUL climate we have had for the past decade..diminished drought, NO Cat 3 or higher hurricanes for a decade.

...theses are EXCEPTIONAL "weather events" ...HISTORIC actually....and they are GOOD for mankind.

So no consensus scientist predicted them or is even willing to talk about them.

So...darling.... don't try to understand what's going on in my mind....you've got A LOT of catching up to do.
Let's be very clear here, no one understands what's going on in your mind including you... Darling.
Bubba
Site Admin
Posts: 26275
Joined: Nov 5th, '04, 08:42
Location: Where the climate suits my clothes

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Bubba »

The northeast United States was hot today. Burlington hit 95, the earliest 95 on record. Still, Mister Moose skied Superstar yesterday. I'm confused. There must be a rational explanation somewhere.
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here"

Killington Zone
You can checkout any time you like,
but you can never leave

"The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function" =
F. Scott Fitzgerald

"There's nothing more frightening than ignorance in action" - Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Woodsrider
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1377
Joined: Jan 12th, '14, 21:34

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Woodsrider »

Bubba wrote:The northeast United States was hot today. Burlington hit 95, the earliest 95 on record. Still, Mister Moose skied Superstar yesterday. I'm confused. There must be a rational explanation somewhere.
I saw a handful of guys on the lower patch yesterday. I would have joined them but I was riding bikes with a power industry executive who didn't ski. He told me on the ride up the the fossil power industry in the US is in serious trouble due to renewables and cheap shale gas. They cannot compete. Peaking plants are the best bet in the short term until storage matures to viability. Then by in large it's over for fossil. I really didn't expect it to happen this quickly.
Sgt Eddy Brewers
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1145
Joined: Aug 24th, '11, 14:57

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Sgt Eddy Brewers »

Woodsrider wrote:
Bubba wrote:The northeast United States was hot today. Burlington hit 95, the earliest 95 on record. Still, Mister Moose skied Superstar yesterday. I'm confused. There must be a rational explanation somewhere.
I saw a handful of guys on the lower patch yesterday. I would have joined them but I was riding bikes with a power industry executive who didn't ski. He told me on the ride up the the fossil power industry in the US is in serious trouble due to renewables and cheap shale gas. They cannot compete. Peaking plants are the best bet in the short term until storage matures to viability. Then by in large it's over for fossil. I really didn't expect it to happen this quickly.
Wow. Is not "cheap shale gas" "fossil power?"

Hard to fit more stupid into a single paragraph.

Classic "I'm an insider/ I know an insider".... type BS that entrances the Grubers...and then a construction that shows clearly you haven't a sane idea on the topic (cheap shale gas will replace fossil power???) (wasn't aware that there were people who thought shale gas wasn't "fossil power")

Yeah anyone who can think knows that certain sectors of the "fossil power" industry will have difficulties competing with other sectors...depending mostly on technologies / cost of extraction...but I think you both are decades ahead of the moment when UNSUBSIDIZED renewables will drive "fossil power" off the market.

The BIGGEST problem in the "fossil power" industry is the massive supply increases due to new technologies and new discoveries. With the massive surplus in "fossil" fuels it seems unlikely they will be priced out of the consumer market. Would not be shocked to see some sectors with higher extraction costs (coal / shale gas) drop out for a while until drop in supply causes a price rebound...but the idea that adequate storage capability is soon to be upon us in a way that makes solar or wind competitive as 24/7 energy supply rather than merely augmentation...seems delusional...unless you can point to progress of which I am unaware.

I like hydro and nuclear ( sorta) as reliable and sane (depending on location) but solar and wind......

Is there any place with high energy demand (including intensive industry) which is anywhere close to sole reliance (24/7) on solar/ wind??

The only current "problem" with well-managed "fossil power" is that it releases CO2......which to sane scientists isn't even a problem...it is actually a benefit.
Ski the edges!
Woodsrider
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1377
Joined: Jan 12th, '14, 21:34

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Woodsrider »

Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote:
Woodsrider wrote:
Bubba wrote:The northeast United States was hot today. Burlington hit 95, the earliest 95 on record. Still, Mister Moose skied Superstar yesterday. I'm confused. There must be a rational explanation somewhere.
I saw a handful of guys on the lower patch yesterday. I would have joined them but I was riding bikes with a power industry executive who didn't ski. He told me on the ride up the the fossil power industry in the US is in serious trouble due to renewables and cheap shale gas. They cannot compete. Peaking plants are the best bet in the short term until storage matures to viability. Then by in large it's over for fossil. I really didn't expect it to happen this quickly.
Wow. Is not "cheap shale gas" "fossil power?"

Hard to fit more stupid into a single paragraph.

Classic "I'm an insider/ I know an insider".... type BS that entrances the Grubers...and then a construction that shows clearly you haven't a sane idea on the topic (cheap shale gas will replace fossil power???) (wasn't aware that there were people who thought shale gas wasn't "fossil power")

Yeah anyone who can think knows that certain sectors of the "fossil power" industry will have difficulties competing with other sectors...depending mostly on technologies / cost of extraction...but I think you both are decades ahead of the moment when UNSUBSIDIZED renewables will drive "fossil power" off the market.

The BIGGEST problem in the "fossil power" industry is the massive supply increases due to new technologies and new discoveries. With the massive surplus in "fossil" fuels it seems unlikely they will be priced out of the consumer market. Would not be shocked to see some sectors with higher extraction costs (coal / shale gas) drop out for a while until drop in supply causes a price rebound...but the idea that adequate storage capability is soon to be upon us in a way that makes solar or wind competitive as 24/7 energy supply rather than merely augmentation...seems delusional...unless you can point to progress of which I am unaware.

I like hydro and nuclear ( sorta) as reliable and sane (depending on location) but solar and wind......

Is there any place with high energy demand (including intensive industry) which is anywhere close to sole reliance (24/7) on solar/ wind??

The only current "problem" with well-managed "fossil power" is that it releases CO2......which to sane scientists isn't even a problem...it is actually a benefit.
My dear man you missed the point entirely. I'm sorry I should have typed slower. It's simple economics. Yes shale gas is fossil of course. Cheap shale gas means low Cost BTUs. So low cost energy. Which means only the most efficient power plants can afford to run. Operations cost more than the energy they produce.

They (power execs) are expecting storage to mature in about 5 years.

CO2 is not the problem with the industry right now. Nox is the problem. Peakers buy Nox credit from clean burning combined cycle plants. Which in NYISO aren't running. So peakers need to modernize for an uncertain future.
Sgt Eddy Brewers
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1145
Joined: Aug 24th, '11, 14:57

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Sgt Eddy Brewers »

Woodsrider wrote:
Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote:
Woodsrider wrote:
Bubba wrote:The northeast United States was hot today. Burlington hit 95, the earliest 95 on record. Still, Mister Moose skied Superstar yesterday. I'm confused. There must be a rational explanation somewhere.
I saw a handful of guys on the lower patch yesterday. I would have joined them but I was riding bikes with a power industry executive who didn't ski. He told me on the ride up the the fossil power industry in the US is in serious trouble due to renewables and cheap shale gas. They cannot compete. Peaking plants are the best bet in the short term until storage matures to viability. Then by in large it's over for fossil. I really didn't expect it to happen this quickly.
Wow. Is not "cheap shale gas" "fossil power?"

Hard to fit more stupid into a single paragraph.

Classic "I'm an insider/ I know an insider".... type BS that entrances the Grubers...and then a construction that shows clearly you haven't a sane idea on the topic (cheap shale gas will replace fossil power???) (wasn't aware that there were people who thought shale gas wasn't "fossil power")

Yeah anyone who can think knows that certain sectors of the "fossil power" industry will have difficulties competing with other sectors...depending mostly on technologies / cost of extraction...but I think you both are decades ahead of the moment when UNSUBSIDIZED renewables will drive "fossil power" off the market.

The BIGGEST problem in the "fossil power" industry is the massive supply increases due to new technologies and new discoveries. With the massive surplus in "fossil" fuels it seems unlikely they will be priced out of the consumer market. Would not be shocked to see some sectors with higher extraction costs (coal / shale gas) drop out for a while until drop in supply causes a price rebound...but the idea that adequate storage capability is soon to be upon us in a way that makes solar or wind competitive as 24/7 energy supply rather than merely augmentation...seems delusional...unless you can point to progress of which I am unaware.

I like hydro and nuclear ( sorta) as reliable and sane (depending on location) but solar and wind......

Is there any place with high energy demand (including intensive industry) which is anywhere close to sole reliance (24/7) on solar/ wind??

The only current "problem" with well-managed "fossil power" is that it releases CO2......which to sane scientists isn't even a problem...it is actually a benefit.
My dear man you missed the point entirely. I'm sorry I should have typed slower. OR BETTER It's simple economics. Yes shale gas is fossil of course. YAY!! You are learning! Cheap shale gas means low Cost BTUs. So low cost energy. Which means only the most efficient power plants can afford to run. Operations cost more than the energy they produce.

They (power execs) are expecting storage to mature in about 5 years. So you say. Link?

CO2 is not the problem with the industry right now. Nox is the problem. Peakers buy Nox credit from clean burning combined cycle plants. Which in NYISO aren't running. So peakers need to modernize for an uncertain future.
OK took a while to get the time to try to unravel the tangle of words you produced

When hydrocarbons are oxidized there are two primary products CO2 and H2O. IF the consensus about CO2 being a driver of the earth’s climate is not correct (IMO it is not) then these two primary products are HARMLESS.

The secondary products of this combustion include oxides of sulfur and nitrogen (nox!!), soot/fly ash (various organic products of incomplete combustion) and CO (which can be minimized with proper conditions). The soot and CO can be minimized with conditions which encourage complete oxidation.

The oxides of sulfur and nitrogen are problematic and are generated chiefly because of the presence of impurities in the fuel. Natural gas generates very little sulfur and nitrogen oxides. Coal…not so good.

But sulfur and nitrogen oxides do not produce any economic cost to the energy supplier UNLESS governments levy fees / legislate costs for producing these compounds. An in today’s world they do. How are these costs calculated??? Well that’s where, as per usual, politics rears its ugly head.

I am willing to stipulate that releasing sulfur and nitrogen oxides does degrade the environment…(although the effect seems exaggerated):

http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1990/Decad ... 735149e3c6" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and THUS a cost SHOULD be levied to compensate for that damage. BUT… to leave that calculation to misguided activists MIGHT lead to insane overestimation of this cost in the service of closing down the use of hydrocarbon fuels.

So… your analysis that “nox is the problem” with hydrocarbon fuels…may be true…. in the current punitive regulatory environment. Our governments seem to be trying to price hydrocarbons out of the market. That’s not a reflection of the actual economic costs of different technologies …just a reflection of the direction of government interference. Acid r*in, the key impact of “nox” in the atmosphere may not be as big a problem as the activist Obama EPA contended (see above). So destroying are most efficient fuel source because of the questionable impact of low levels of sulfur and nitrogen oxides in the combustion product might not be smart. We should be smart.

I am not pretending to be an expert on this topic but, after watching “experts” on energy technology produce RIDICULOUS predictions about energy trajectories (peak oil was supposed to have destroyed us decades ago) for decades… IMO the “experts”…aren’t.

So again I find it hard to “trust” the “energy experts” you seem to rely on because…they, as a group, have an awful record predicting, are likely to be corrupted by the fashionable groupthink that “fossil fuels” are evil, and….I’m a scientist so trusting experts is not my thing.

I appreciate your efforts to educate me on this topic but at least add a link or two to send me to sources you adjudge as reliable.

Did you believe peak oil was a thing back from the late 70s on or are you, like me, generally more resistant to groupthink and saw through it from the beginning????? Just wondering.
Ski the edges!
killyfan
Blue Chatterbox
Posts: 128
Joined: Feb 27th, '17, 09:44

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by killyfan »

IMO paying a monetary fine/fee in order to be allowed to produce sulfur and nitrogen oxides is stupid. The attitude of "Gee - we paid a sh*t ton of money to the government and now it's OK if we produce metric tons of NOX" that most scientists, (even the self-proclaimed scientist Sgt Eddy Brewers) agree are harmful to our environment is idiotic. Sorry for the bluntness, but I just can't think of a better way to say this. Money does not make damaging our planet OK/right/etc. Remember, money and religion are the roots of all evil. I'm no scientist, have never claimed to be, and am just voicing an ethical opinion here.

Go to Switzerland/Austria/France and take a tour of the mountains. Ski for a week - it's incredible. Then drop down into their metropolitan areas. The cities are really f-n clean. I spent a month working in Paris once about 15 years ago and the cleanliness was mind-boggling. Maybe it hit me really hard because I was living in NYC for about 10 years at that time, where it was a battle to walk down the block without getting hit in the legs/torso/face with blowing garbage and noxious fumes... Zurich and Geneva are gorgeous, and CLEAN. I haven't been to Austria, but have former clients from Salzburg, Linz and Vienna. They LOVED living in those spotless cities. And they LOVED living in a country that gets the majority of its power from hydro sources. I had one client from Belfast Ireland who had moved to Switzerland. This gentleman always called New Jersey the "armpit of America" because all he ever saw of it was what you get out the car window on the drive from Newark airport into Manhattan. I did try to tell him about the nicer parts of the state, but I do have to agree with him that the industrial centers surrounding our major cities are gross. I spent the first 10 years of my life living in the Detroit suburbs, and I can still remember the smell like it was yesterday.

SEB - a couple of months ago I repeatedly invited you to meet for a beer. You said you would come, then conveniently disappeared from the forum and email chains when the meeting was scheduled, and you didn't show up. That invitation still stands. I think Woodsrider and I would be happy to schedule a meeting any time you are available.

Of course I have a lot of catching up to do on your overall viewpoints - I just joined this forum a few months ago. I think the quickest way to do this would be for us to meet and talk in person. If you're not willing to do that, so be it.
In a world where you can be anything, why not choose to be kind...
Sgt Eddy Brewers
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1145
Joined: Aug 24th, '11, 14:57

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Sgt Eddy Brewers »

killyfan wrote:IMO paying a monetary fine/fee in order to be allowed to produce sulfur and nitrogen oxides is stupid. The attitude of "Gee - we paid a sh*t ton of money to the government and now it's OK if we produce metric tons of NOX" that most scientists, (even the self-proclaimed scientist Sgt Eddy Brewers) agree are harmful to our environment is idiotic. Sorry for the bluntness, but I just can't think of a better way to say this. Money does not make damaging our planet OK/right/etc. Remember, money and religion are the roots of all evil. I'm no scientist, have never claimed to be, and am just voicing an ethical opinion here.

Go to Switzerland/Austria/France and take a tour of the mountains. Ski for a week - it's incredible. Then drop down into their metropolitan areas. The cities are really f-n clean. I spent a month working in Paris once about 15 years ago and the cleanliness was mind-boggling. Maybe it hit me really hard because I was living in NYC for about 10 years at that time, where it was a battle to walk down the block without getting hit in the legs/torso/face with blowing garbage and noxious fumes... Zurich and Geneva are gorgeous, and CLEAN. I haven't been to Austria, but have former clients from Salzburg, Linz and Vienna. They LOVED living in those spotless cities. And they LOVED living in a country that gets the majority of its power from hydro sources. I had one client from Belfast Ireland who had moved to Switzerland. This gentleman always called New Jersey the "armpit of America" because all he ever saw of it was what you get out the car window on the drive from Newark airport into Manhattan. I did try to tell him about the nicer parts of the state, but I do have to agree with him that the industrial centers surrounding our major cities are gross. I spent the first 10 years of my life living in the Detroit suburbs, and I can still remember the smell like it was yesterday.

SEB - a couple of months ago I repeatedly invited you to meet for a beer. You said you would come, then conveniently disappeared from the forum and email chains when the meeting was scheduled, and you didn't show up. That invitation still stands. I think Woodsrider and I would be happy to schedule a meeting any time you are available.

Of course I have a lot of catching up to do on your overall viewpoints - I just joined this forum a few months ago. I think the quickest way to do this would be for us to meet and talk in person. If you're not willing to do that, so be it.
Yeah OK. Well last point first. I WISH I had come up and had a beer with you!! Or skied. I live in CT. This was my least active ski season in my adult life. First season without a blackout pass in about 15 years(?) Lots of dumb reasons for this but mostly parenting and finance. Have two kids paying college tuition and an active tween to deal with. So, sorry about all that. I skied only three times this year. Ouch. A beer would be nice (skiing a lot would have been better)..wish things had worked out. I still hope to get up a few times for trout season.

I know my online personality tends towards deeply snarky but...it is the internet and I suffer from sincere scientist syndrome. I empathize with the generation of scientists who trained me. They seem, to me, to be more rigorous and honest in their scientific practice. There are so many of them, retired so they don't worry about funding, who hold the same positions I do. Anyone who says "the science is settled" vaguely frightens me.

I virtually worship clean ecosystems. New England is (excepting habitat loss due to increased housing,etc) cleaner than it was when I was young. Why?? Increased environmental consciousness and government action. We probably agree on these points. I almost worship wilderness. But...the details about how we retain or re-establish wilderness is what we might debate about. Land use / over-harvest / actual pollution(not CO2) / even some GMO issues....these are things I think humans have screwed up on and I am happy to allow legislation to limit the damages. Just not buying the "CO2 is BAD" meme. For entirely scientific reasons.
Ski the edges!
Woodsrider
Slalom Racer
Posts: 1377
Joined: Jan 12th, '14, 21:34

Re: Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Chang

Post by Woodsrider »

Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote:
Woodsrider wrote:
Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote:
Woodsrider wrote:
Bubba wrote:The northeast United States was hot today. Burlington hit 95, the earliest 95 on record. Still, Mister Moose skied Superstar yesterday. I'm confused. There must be a rational explanation somewhere.
I saw a handful of guys on the lower patch yesterday. I would have joined them but I was riding bikes with a power industry executive who didn't ski. He told me on the ride up the the fossil power industry in the US is in serious trouble due to renewables and cheap shale gas. They cannot compete. Peaking plants are the best bet in the short term until storage matures to viability. Then by in large it's over for fossil. I really didn't expect it to happen this quickly.
Wow. Is not "cheap shale gas" "fossil power?"

Hard to fit more stupid into a single paragraph.

Classic "I'm an insider/ I know an insider".... type BS that entrances the Grubers...and then a construction that shows clearly you haven't a sane idea on the topic (cheap shale gas will replace fossil power???) (wasn't aware that there were people who thought shale gas wasn't "fossil power")

Yeah anyone who can think knows that certain sectors of the "fossil power" industry will have difficulties competing with other sectors...depending mostly on technologies / cost of extraction...but I think you both are decades ahead of the moment when UNSUBSIDIZED renewables will drive "fossil power" off the market.

The BIGGEST problem in the "fossil power" industry is the massive supply increases due to new technologies and new discoveries. With the massive surplus in "fossil" fuels it seems unlikely they will be priced out of the consumer market. Would not be shocked to see some sectors with higher extraction costs (coal / shale gas) drop out for a while until drop in supply causes a price rebound...but the idea that adequate storage capability is soon to be upon us in a way that makes solar or wind competitive as 24/7 energy supply rather than merely augmentation...seems delusional...unless you can point to progress of which I am unaware.

I like hydro and nuclear ( sorta) as reliable and sane (depending on location) but solar and wind......

Is there any place with high energy demand (including intensive industry) which is anywhere close to sole reliance (24/7) on solar/ wind??

The only current "problem" with well-managed "fossil power" is that it releases CO2......which to sane scientists isn't even a problem...it is actually a benefit.
My dear man you missed the point entirely. I'm sorry I should have typed slower. OR BETTER It's simple economics. Yes shale gas is fossil of course. YAY!! You are learning! Cheap shale gas means low Cost BTUs. So low cost energy. Which means only the most efficient power plants can afford to run. Operations cost more than the energy they produce.

They (power execs) are expecting storage to mature in about 5 years. So you say. Link?

CO2 is not the problem with the industry right now. Nox is the problem. Peakers buy Nox credit from clean burning combined cycle plants. Which in NYISO aren't running. So peakers need to modernize for an uncertain future.
OK took a while to get the time to try to unravel the tangle of words you produced

When hydrocarbons are oxidized there are two primary products CO2 and H2O. IF the consensus about CO2 being a driver of the earth’s climate is not correct (IMO it is not) then these two primary products are HARMLESS.

The secondary products of this combustion include oxides of sulfur and nitrogen (nox!!), soot/fly ash (various organic products of incomplete combustion) and CO (which can be minimized with proper conditions). The soot and CO can be minimized with conditions which encourage complete oxidation.

The oxides of sulfur and nitrogen are problematic and are generated chiefly because of the presence of impurities in the fuel. Natural gas generates very little sulfur and nitrogen oxides. Coal…not so good.

But sulfur and nitrogen oxides do not produce any economic cost to the energy supplier UNLESS governments levy fees / legislate costs for producing these compounds. An in today’s world they do. How are these costs calculated??? Well that’s where, as per usual, politics rears its ugly head.

I am willing to stipulate that releasing sulfur and nitrogen oxides does degrade the environment…(although the effect seems exaggerated):

http://www.apnewsarchive.com/1990/Decad ... 735149e3c6" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and THUS a cost SHOULD be levied to compensate for that damage. BUT… to leave that calculation to misguided activists MIGHT lead to insane overestimation of this cost in the service of closing down the use of hydrocarbon fuels.

So… your analysis that “nox is the problem” with hydrocarbon fuels…may be true…. in the current punitive regulatory environment. Our governments seem to be trying to price hydrocarbons out of the market. That’s not a reflection of the actual economic costs of different technologies …just a reflection of the direction of government interference. Acid r*in, the key impact of “nox” in the atmosphere may not be as big a problem as the activist Obama EPA contended (see above). So destroying are most efficient fuel source because of the questionable impact of low levels of sulfur and nitrogen oxides in the combustion product might not be smart. We should be smart.

I am not pretending to be an expert on this topic but, after watching “experts” on energy technology produce RIDICULOUS predictions about energy trajectories (peak oil was supposed to have destroyed us decades ago) for decades… IMO the “experts”…aren’t.

So again I find it hard to “trust” the “energy experts” you seem to rely on because…they, as a group, have an awful record predicting, are likely to be corrupted by the fashionable groupthink that “fossil fuels” are evil, and….I’m a scientist so trusting experts is not my thing.

I appreciate your efforts to educate me on this topic but at least add a link or two to send me to sources you adjudge as reliable.

Did you believe peak oil was a thing back from the late 70s on or are you, like me, generally more resistant to groupthink and saw through it from the beginning????? Just wondering.
NOX is produced by high heat combustion. N2 comes from the atmosphere. It's 79% of our atmosphere. SO2 is from sulfur content in the fuel. Both are damaging. Acid r*in was a big problem before it was regulated. Now it is less so. So regulations worked. When I said NOX is the problem I was referring to the economics of power production. CO2 is not yet regulated. But you know my thoughts on CO2. As far as links, I have nothing to prove. So look them up yourself.

With regards to peak oil, the timing was way off. But theoretically it may happen. What peak oil missed was technology advancements. Which are exponential. I expect demand will fall long before supply. It's already happening. Look at the Telsa story.
Post Reply