Global Climate Changes
- Thread starter Caveman Catfan
- Start date
I am willing to have dialogue once it is actually proven it is a serious problem. Proven.
And this "change"....there have been umpteen "10 year plans" for reducing this and that. Did they work and if so, what did they accomplish?
I guess my God fearing laws of nature have proven to me that we are experiencing the same weather we always have during my 58 years on earth.....and many decades before.
Technically were still in an Ice age. Its just in a warming period that lasts roughly 10000 years. We are actually due to go back into the cold period soon. However, when I say soon I'm talking geologic time. Which could be from a couple of hundred years to a couple of thousand.
Blaming humans for disrupting something that changes over thousands of years is just myopic. Carlin was right. It's amazing how no environmentalist is throwing a fit over all the disposable blue masks that are piling up...
Argument from incredulity is not an argument. There are all kinds of things that violate "common sense" and that just don't feel like they should be right, yet are true.
With climate change, we know that climate outputs are sensitive to changes in inputs (obviously, as we know climate does change). We know that increasing concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap additional energy from escaping (this can be and has been measured in labs). We know that atmospheric CO2 has been increasing throughout the past century (we directly measure this). We know that it is human activity that has caused this increase in CO2 (Increases are occurring at levels that align with the amount of human emissions, and we have observed changes in the the carbon isotope composition of atmospheric CO2 that align with what would be expected if the CO2 was coming from the burning of fossil fuels). There is incredibly robust evidence supporting anthropogenic warming, and predominantly unscientific appeals such as your own in opposition.
As to Carlin, I suspect it's been a long time since you watched that bit, or that you failed to understand it. His point was that caring about "the environment" as a thing on its own was silly, because regardless of what we humans do the Earth and the environment will adapt and adjust and go on ticking even after we're gone. But did you forget the "we're ****ed" line in the bit? Climate change isn't an issue because it'll hurt the precious environment. Climate change is a problem because we have to live in that environment.
The same people talking about global warming... oops climate change now, were the ones making the claim of dramatic warming and the imminent melting of the polar ice caps by 2025 right? Oh and the ozone hole was going to continue to grow too... well, none of that happened. Last I looked, the hole healed itself and Pelosi bought oceanfront property... so excuse me if I don't believe any of the hogwash.
Global warming and climate change have been used interchangeably in science since the 60s/70s. It was Republican activists led by Frank Luntz who led the charge in shifting public discourse to talk about "climate change" more than "global warming" because they thought it sounded less scary.
You pay too much attention to pundits and politicians and media and not enough to science - one worst case run of one model showing a potential ice free arctic that early does not discredit all of climate science. There has never been a scientific consensus on sea ice being gone that quickly. And the actions of a geriatric millionaire politician have exactly nothing to do with what is or is not happening. Pelosi will be dead before sea levels threaten her property and I highly doubt she gives two shits what happens to it after she's in the dirt.
The ozone hole is healing because we took action to ban the things that were causing the hole. That's the tragedy of a crisis averted - people don't think the crisis really existed and don't take future ones seriously.
I'll add that none of your post addressed any of the science around global warming. You ignored every part of what I've said. You're not even trying to have a coherent discussion about it. Your mind is made up and you're throwing any rhetorical tactic out you can to try to muddy that water and win a debate. Because by all appearances you're the political ideologue you so badly want to accuse others of being. So on that note, since I realize I'm wasting my time and that I've said all I have to say on the subject, I'm walking away from this unproductive exchange.
Because I don't believe that your "science" is legit with climate change considering the goalposts keep moving. It is laughable that the human race is killing the planet with emissions of CO2 when we've only been industrialized for a little over a century. The climate does change. Sure, CO2 rises. But it's not science without a representative sample. The climate changes over thousands of years. Humanity is a grain of sand in that scale.
Everything you posted there is utter bullshit. It saddens me to know that you actually believe what you typed is true. My only salvation is the knowledge that you are an outlier. Thankfully there are not many who feel as you do.
So how did the Earth not burn up when co2 levels were in the 8000ppm range? If 400ppm will kill all life it seems like life would of never started at 20x higher levels. Mammals evolved on Earth when co2 levels were around 800. co2 levels have been going down for millions of years. Plants die when co2 levels get below 160ppm or so. We were in the 300ish range when the industrial revolution began and we have lows in the 180ppm range.
One could make a compelling argument that Man saved all plant life by putting more co2 in the atmosphere.
We haven't even reached the halfway point of May. Have fun with them rolling blackouts. DON'T CALIFORNIA MY TEXAS LMAO.
Back in winter 2021, the system was so thoroughly overwhelmed that we were minutes away from an automatic shutdown of the entire grid, which would have taken months to get back online. A decade ago, when a similar storm caused similar problems, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission called on Texas to winterize its natural-gas facilities. But Texas’s grid, since it is independent, is not subject to federal oversight. Sufficient winterization didn’t happen then, and not much substantively changed. The legislature did pass a bill setting new weatherization standards, with regulations applying mainly to electrical plants. But natural-gas facilities, whose failure was a driving factor in last year’s crisis and in previous blackouts, were treated with much more deference.
But why focus on fixing it when you can focus on banning books, CRT, trans kids, abortions; slashing voting rights; writing a letter to the president criticizing him for feeding immigrant babies in US custody; and spending billions to inspect import trucks at the border to create more supply chain delays and leading Mexico to work out a permanent solution to divert all that import business to another state?
Yeah, I remember when Abbott lied about renewables causing the blackout then saying he would fix the grid too.
You understand Texas leads the nation in energy production right?
How about those Trump tariffs celebrated for several years here in The Paddock as well?
Yep and even they have blackout issues. So let's add more electric vehicles and more strain on an aging grid nationwide.
I hope solar becomes an economically viable option but what you are saying isn't the whole truth. It may be what gets reported, but it isn't the whole truth. Let's start with economics and utilities choosing renewable energy over fossil fuel. Many jurisdictions have mandated that utilities have a certain percentage of their generation come from renewable sources. These mandates fly in face of decades of utility regulation that requires least cost planning models to choose the generation source. Least cost planning means the utility is required to project capacity needs in the future, and through present value analysis, find the generation source that will fill that need and have the lowest impact on rates (least cost alternative). Because renewables without batteries provide very little on-peak capacity compared with fossil fuel generation, they are significantly more expensive for consumers and is why under least cost planning regulation aren't generally chosen for installation. To get around that problem many places have mandated a certain renewable percentage. It's also become politically correct to have solar so some utilities are asking the regulatory commission in their jurisdiction to allow a symbolic installation (not a part of least cost planning to meet capacity needs) of solar so they can show their customers they are environmentally friendly. So when it is chosen freely it is generally chosen because of positive PR, not because it is less expensive.
The economics of individuals choosing solar is also being influenced heavily by government. Many jurisdictions intentionally credit back the full retail electric rate against any solar production. The full rate includes distribution costs, production costs, and sometimes even things like customer service costs. Solar can only offset some or all of production costs. In other words, the power is either generated by solar or by the utility's generation. The other costs in the rate don't change whether the power comes from solar or utility generation. If solar doesn't produce during peak hours (it never does during the winter months but partially does during the summer months), then the value of the solar is only the value of the fuel and variable O&M it takes to produce the electricity. That is very low. In Kentucky it's probably less than 3 cents per kWh. To the extent it produces during peak hours, it also offsets production capacity costs. This is also small because it generally isn't available during peak hours except partially in the summer. However, many jurisdictions mandate that the utility credit the full kWh rate back for solar use. So a solar customer may be getting 8 - 12 cents per kWh credit when the actual value is 3 - 5 cents. Who pays for that subsidy. Those unrecovered costs are spread to everyone else. So poor people already struggling to pay their electric bills are subsidizing wealthier people who can afford solar panels, and so are the rest of us. Even worse is that it is creating a false perception of the economics of solar and people are investing their money in solar based on that perception. If solar becomes large on a system the current level of credit is not sustainable. So the day may come when the rug might have to be pulled out from under those people. It's borderline fraud in my opinion. Those are specific instances when solar is being propped up directly by government but you won't read about it in the paper.
We can also add the cost of transmission lines being built by independent system operators in the billions of dollars to reach wind farms that receive a nice automatic return on investment of almost 10% from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Last edited:
Cat - that's the micro view but the macro or big picture view includes the costs to the economy directly as a result of green houses gases and other pollutants. Health care costs due to respiratory and heart disease caused by pollutants from coal fire steam plants are tremendous and insurance claims for disaster damage is escalating at a tremendous rate due to the rapid increase in sever stores and fires. The US DOD has noted Climate Change is one of the highest risks to national security and has a special department working on how to deal with it going forward.
Other industrialized countries like Norway, Brazil and New Zealand have found ways to generate most of their energy needs with renewable sources. If they can do it I see no reason why the greatest country in the world can't.
Other industrialized countries like Norway, Brazil and New Zealand have found ways to generate most of their energy needs with renewable sources. If they can do it I see no reason why the greatest country in the world can't.
The load demand put on renewables, and the closure of coal plants is a main reason for the current and coming electricity problems.
In the spring and Fall power plants go into planned outages, it’s a necessity to ensure maintenance is done for required high load seasons of Summer and Winter.
The grid is the power production sites, it isn’t the electrical wires. The power produced at the sites maintains the grid, if there is a too little power being produced something has to give, and that power has to be immediate.
-I'm with you....we can do this eventually.
^can't afford to continue to collapse our economy....while China is making plans to take over the world...and succeeding.
-these measures taken in the US have had *zero* meaningful effect...other than to make us feel righteous. The fossil fuels are still being burned/air and water still being polluted the same amount...only its half a world away in SE and S Asia. The only thing we've accomplished is forfeit of jobs and national security for the illusion of "environmental protection", cheap chinese plastic shit and self serving righteousness. It's a grift.
Last edited:
I agree with you point that GCC is a global issue, and as I said before the Chinas and the Indias won't make significant progress until the technology and numbers work for them. Still it's interesting to note China is pumping nearly a 100 Billion USD a year into alt energy. So while they are the biggest polluter they are also the biggest investor in alt energy about 2x the US
China Is Bankrolling Green Energy Projects Around the World
China boosts geopolitical clout over oil producers as renewable demand soars
I disagree that alt energy is costing jobs in fact it's creating 10x more jobs that than it loses. The race to convert to alt energy is one I want the US to win not China, but we all benefit for any progress.
^I see that...but I was speaking about loss of manufacturing jobs due to environmental regs* in the US.
*for balance: the desire to use cheaper labor for higher profits/cheaper products played an equal role in this as well.
^The stuff really isn't cheaper now...and our "disposable product" addiction as a society is gross/suicidal, there are alternatives. But this is a rant for another thread/day.
*for balance: the desire to use cheaper labor for higher profits/cheaper products played an equal role in this as well.
^The stuff really isn't cheaper now...and our "disposable product" addiction as a society is gross/suicidal, there are alternatives. But this is a rant for another thread/day.
I can't help but laugh at you Lefties: fossil fuel use will certainly continue to diminish... but you idiots lie, and/or are wrong, about EVERYTHING.
I mean, you can't even tell us the correct number of genders... and you folks expect us to actually believe you on green energy/climate change/whateverscamyourtryingthismonth?
Lol.
I mean, you can't even tell us the correct number of genders... and you folks expect us to actually believe you on green energy/climate change/whateverscamyourtryingthismonth?
Lol.
I was just responding to your comment that they are making the switch because it's more economical and government isn't forcing the issue. That's actually not the case. Solar and wind would rarely be implemented based on least cost planning. Individuals think solar is a good deal because government is forcing its subsidization through utility rates. I'm hopeful that someday it is the most economical solution but right now that isn't the case.
Externalities are a different subject.
Even more ironic that republicans in that state would vote against an infrastructure bill.
Twenty-two in the House alone if I counted correctly.
How Every House Member Voted on the Infrastructure Bill (Published 2021)
The $1 trillion package passed with the support of nearly all Democrats and 13 Republicans.
Last edited:
Republicans like to talk about crumbling infrastructure but never actually want to do anything about it.Even more ironic that republicans in that state would vote against an infrastructure bill.
Twenty-two in the House alone if I counted correctly.
How Every House Member Voted on the Infrastructure Bill (Published 2021)
The $1 trillion package passed with the support of nearly all Democrats and 13 Republicans.www.nytimes.com
Hopefully, the GOP will take the house and senate so we can test that theory. The Dems expanded the meaning of the word “infrastructure” to mean every social program they could conceive. So, that disconnect created some problems. A pure infrastructure bill was always something this congress could achieve, had the Dems honestly pursued such.
I wish it were that simple. Both sides hate each other so much that they won't support the other side's proposals and will invent reasons not to do so. As one example, Pelosi led a group of Democrat reps to Kyiv last week and yesterday McConnell led a group of GOP Senators. My take is that they are not even willing to even sit on the same plane to go pay a visit to support Ukraine, and show a united American front. So what makes you think they will come together to do the right thing about US policy?
That would be fine. Gov’t is truly at its most effective when it’s doing nothing at all.
Agree on the "non-infrastructure, infrastructure" but the final version of the Infrastructure bill passed on a bipartisan basis and was signed into law last fall.
Yeah, it still has some of the non-infrastructure spending and did not have as much infrastructure spending as Biden could have had, if the Dems had stuck with a true infrastructure bill.
You don’t see why tiny countries (or countries with tiny economies) are able to replace fossil fuels more easily than us?
.
LMFAO.
Tell me this, when shifts continue to happen in all directions and the oceans haven’t risen to catastrophic levels by the time you’re 85, will you stop with this nonsense or will you actually continue pounding this leftist drum? I just want to see how political you are willing to be even if you look ridiculous - because man this statement is absolutely bonkers.
I could almost guarantee if the earth began to cool over the next 5 years you’d say it’s because America took steps to reduce emissions. I mean it’s nearly a certainty.
LMFAO.
Tell me this, when shifts continue to happen in all directions and the oceans haven’t risen to catastrophic levels by the time you’re 85, will you stop with this nonsense or will you actually continue pounding this leftist drum? I just want to see how political you are willing to be even if you look ridiculous - because man this statement is absolutely bonkers.
I could almost guarantee if the earth began to cool over the next 5 years you’d say it’s because America took steps to reduce emissions. I mean it’s nearly a certainty.
I really hate both parties and as someone who has education in political science I learned long ago that they are designed to so nothing but harbor the ambitious goals of selfish men, but the modern left is just insane. It’s not all of the voters I’m talking about, it’s the concepts being advocated by people who have the megaphone. I would absolutely not vote for any of them in this climate.
Are... you challenging the idea that CFCs are ozone depleting? And "we" here is not the US, "we" here is the world. The Montreal Protocol in 1987 was a treaty ratified by all UN members. Global consumption of ozone depleting substances has declined 98% as a result of the treaty.
