Some truth to people who think we can be 100% renewable

[mpeirce]

Your hyperbole is not that far off.

"Over the last decade, southern lobster fisheries along Long Island and Connecticut have already seen their catches drop due to lobsters moving north into Maine, which hauled record catches during the same time period, according to the Portland Press Herald.
...

... and a number of examples of other studies showing that the planet "may be" warming.

No one who's a "denier" denies that the climate varies and we well may be in a warming period. That certainly makes sense since we're still coming out of an ice age.

But then people conflate these studies - which are consistent with natural climate cycles - with the "hyperbole is not that far off". Meaning: hey, the planet is on fire!

Also these studies use soft wording: "Study Suggests" and "long-term impact of climate change may be" and "Our findings suggest" which lets people fill in the blanks as they wish. Many folks again think "OHNO!". This isn't hard science, it's rhetoric.

 

[HFWR]

I think the whole idea of AGW is that things are not consistent with natural cycles. And though there may be some benefits to higher CO2, the estimated rapidity of change will make it difficult for flora and fauna to adapt.

Other results may include ocean acidification and changes to ocean currents, permafrost melting, changes in growing seasons, melting glaciers that reduce fresh water supplies and change monsoon patterns, etc. And as noted previously, things always have had to adapt to natural climate changes, but usually over much longer time frames.

At least that’s my feeble understanding...

 

[JoeWras]

Doesn't matter what happened thousands or millions of years ago.

It matters. Understanding why Chicago was at the base of an ice sheet a mere 11,000 years ago, helps understand the large trend of natural climate change, and the place that man made effects have on top of this.

Consider natural climate change the foundation, and man-made change the building sitting on that foundation. Need to understand how both work together to cogently speak of climate in general.

I lived on an ancient (actually only 8,000 years old) beach in Chicago when Lake Michigan was much higher and was named Lake Chicago. It was a kids' dream. We could dig all day and hit nothing but sand. Part of that curiosity lead me to study a bit about geology and meteorology. I ultimately went into the tech fields. But I'm sad that we can't easily discuss things like geology and climate anymore because they have become politically (on one side) or religiously (on the other side) charged.

 

[Music Lover]

I think the whole idea of AGW is that things are not consistent with natural cycles. And though there may be some benefits to higher CO2, the estimated rapidity of change will make it difficult for flora and fauna to adapt.

Commercial greenhouses routinely add CO2 to 1200 - 1500 ppm and the plants not only adapt, they thrive. Instantly. I don't know who originally made that claim but they are denying science and the decades of proof.

Other results may include ocean acidification and changes to ocean currents, permafrost melting, changes in growing seasons, melting glaciers that reduce fresh water supplies and change monsoon patterns, etc. And as noted previously, things always have had to adapt to natural climate changes, but usually over much longer time frames.

At least that’s my feeble understanding...

There is no evidence of accelerated change outside any norm. Sometimes it changes slow and sometimes it changes fast. 10,000 years ago my house would have been under a mile of ice. 1 or 2 degrees is a rounding error, not a disaster.

And, as I posted a couple of days ago, according to NOAA severe tornadoes are down and the worst hurricanes happened 100 years ago.

 

[HFWR]

Commercial greenhouses routinely add CO2 to 1200 - 1500 ppm and the plants not only adapt, they thrive. Instantly. I don't know who originally made that claim but they are denying science and the decades of proof.







There is no evidence of accelerated change outside any norm. Sometimes it changes slow and sometimes it changes fast. 10,000 years ago my house would have been under a mile of ice. 1 or 2 degrees is a rounding error, not a disaster.



And, as I posted a couple of days ago, according to NOAA severe tornadoes are down and the worst hurricanes happened 100 years ago.

I’ll just leave this here...

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.

 

[pj.mask]

Wow lots of posts and people taking things way out of context. You can’t decouple CO2, higher temperature and sever weather. The majority of scientists agree on that.

So if you say plants will do fine with higher CO2 - sure they will but how will they do with droughts and heat?

Those 150 turning into 200 “growing days” in the south sound like it will still be 150 growing days only with 50 days of plant killing heat/drought right in the middle of summer unless you have access to water (and possibly shade). Fun fact about underground aquifers- they take a LONG time to refill.

We have high CO2 so the argument was made why try to do anything because it will always be high? That doesn’t make sense. We have made large improvements on co2 capture so we could reverse that if we committed to it.

Again, haven’t seen any actual scientific information saying CO2 lags temperature rise. But give me a few minutes and my new blog at www.totallyrealscience.xxx will prove that CO2 actually cools the earth.. trust me, in a PhD astronaut cowboy scientist. It says so on my blog!

 

[ls99]

A momentary blip: MIAMI (AP) — The National Weather Service routinely warns people about falling rain, snow and hail, but temperatures are dropping so low in South Florida the forecasters warned residents Tuesday about falling iguanas.
https://apnews.com/0d09b7b1420b13a2fd576737874143d8

 

[NW-Bound]

... falling iguanas...

Many Floridians have taken to eating iguanas. They are big, and quite meaty. They have been called "chicken of the trees".

If not squeamish, you can search Youtube to see how people skin them, season the meat and put it on the grill. Bon appétit!

 

[AnonEMouse]

Many Floridians have taken to eating iguanas. They are big, and quite meaty. They have been called "chicken of the trees".

If not squeamish, you can search Youtube to see how people skin them, season the meat and put it on the grill. Bon appétit!

I hear the pythons there are pretty tasty as well.

 

[Music Lover]

Wow lots of posts and people taking things way out of context. You can’t decouple CO2, higher temperature and sever weather. The majority of scientists agree on that.

I posted links a couple days ago (one of them from NOAA) that show that extreme weather has gone down. This is real data, not "consensus":

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-in...atology/trends

8 of the 10 worst recorded hurricanes in US history happened between 1856 and 1928:

https://owlcation.com/stem/Worst-Hur...States-History

 

[Bigdawg]

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.

So precise. I kind of sort think that it might be maybe bad?

 

[samclem]

8 of the 10 worst recorded hurricanes in US history happened between 1856 and 1928:

https://owlcation.com/stem/Worst-Hur...States-History

FWIW: That link doesn't appear to be working.

Edited to add:
Here's the link you provided earlier on this, it works okay:
https://owlcation.com/stem/Worst-Hurricanes-United-States-History


The "worst hurricane" metric in the article seems to be based on lives lost in each storm. There have been significant improvements in weather forecasting, flood control, construction standards, ability of people to effectively evacuate, etc since the 1800s, so "lives lost" may not be a great way to measure storm intensity. Storm intensity might be a more appropriate indicator if we are interested in "weather" or not storms are getting stronger in recent years.

 

[Music Lover]

FWIW: That link doesn't appear to be working.

WTF?? It worked a couple days ago. Here's a different link:

https://owlcation.com/stem/Worst-Hurricanes-United-States-History

 

[Gumby]

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

This is a more recent piece (2019) from NOAA regarding the effects of AGW on hurricanes.

In summary, they can't yet conclude that there will be more Atlantic hurricanes in this century. They do, however, have high confidence that the rainfall associated with each storm will be heavier and medium confidence that the intensity of each storm will be greater. They also think that storm surges will be worse.

You can see Summary, Section F for the bottom line, but the whole paper is an interesting read.

 

[pj.mask]

I posted links a couple days ago (one of them from NOAA) that show that extreme weather has gone down. This is real data, not "consensus":



https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-in...atology/trends



8 of the 10 worst recorded hurricanes in US history happened between 1856 and 1928:



https://owlcation.com/stem/Worst-Hur...States-History

Weather is more than just hurricanes and tornadoes. There are also rain/floods due to warm airs ability to hold moisture. There are droughts. There are heat waves and cold fronts - some caused by disruptions to the jet stream.

Next time someone asks me how the weather is I’ll tell them I don’t see a hurricane. Lol

 

[HFWR]

Weather is more than just hurricanes and tornadoes. There are also rain/floods due to warm airs ability to hold moisture. There are droughts. There are heat waves and cold fronts - some caused by disruptions to the jet stream.

Next time someone asks me how the weather is I’ll tell them I don’t see a hurricane. Lol

Another thing to remember is that not all weather occurs in the US.

 

[NW-Bound]

I hear the pythons there are pretty tasty as well.

To tie this to the thread topic you have to describe how to cook these delicacies with RE. Most people on Youtube simply grill them, but if even propane is ruled out (no burning anything), you will have to use a specially made solar oven. Else, you will be limited to a stew.

A solar oven can be made quite simply, but to achieve a high enough temperature for browning, it will take a light concentrator, or a Fresnel lens. The light will be so bright, you will also need to wear a welder's eye shield.

Darn, I can think up all kinds of subjects to make money with a Youtube channel. Remember, you read it here first, in case some Youtubers are going to run off with my idea.

PS. I read that some restaurateurs in Berkeley were upset that banning gas cooking will really limit their culinary repertoire.

 

[timo2]

...
Also these studies use soft wording: "Study Suggests" and "long-term impact of climate change may be" and "Our findings suggest" which lets people fill in the blanks as they wish. Many folks again think "OHNO!". This isn't hard science, it's rhetoric.

Only religion speaks in absolutes. and as you know, science is not religion. So of course that's the lingo in the scientific reports. I wouldn't trust them otherwise. Any scientist that speaks in absolutes is probably a fake. So that's why we get those 99% of scientists believe whatever, because scientists rarely speak in religious absolute. But the religiously-minded sure pounce on that as a fault in the scientific logic.

 

[mpeirce]

Only religion speaks in absolutes. and as you know, science is not religion. So of course that's the lingo in the scientific reports. I wouldn't trust them otherwise. Any scientist that speaks in absolutes is probably a fake. So that's why we get those 99% of scientists believe whatever, because scientists rarely speak in religious absolute. But the religiously-minded sure pounce on that as a fault in the scientific logic.

Every study physics or chemistry? I realize that climate science isn't a hard science where scientists come up with hypothesis that can actually be falsified. Maybe they aren't really using the scientific method.

And why the pot shots against religious folks? Most of the great scientists over the years where religious. And you certainly have no idea if I am religiously minded.

 

[timo2]

And why the pot shots against religious folks? Most of the great scientists over the years where religious. And you certainly have no idea if I am religiously minded.

Correct, I have no idea if you are religious, so I definitely could not have meant it towards you. I meant in general.
You mentioned the hedging of the scientific determinations as a negative. But that's how scientists speak. As I said, only religion speaks in absolutes. It's not a pot shot, it's how religions operate. and I am somewhat religious, so I have a good background in that. [and I think religion and science can coexist, which apparently puts me in a minority]. My point is don't take scientific hedging as a weakness when it is actually a strength.

 

[Music Lover]

Only religion speaks in absolutes. and as you know, science is not religion. So of course that's the lingo in the scientific reports. I wouldn't trust them otherwise. Any scientist that speaks in absolutes is probably a fake. So that's why we get those 99% of scientists believe whatever, because scientists rarely speak in religious absolute. But the religiously-minded sure pounce on that as a fault in the scientific logic.

If you're referring to the 97% claim, it was soundly debunked several times. They only counted something like 57 of the 2000 or so people that replied to the survey. Yet, some well known "climate" people still like to use that number.

And then there is the " the science is settled" and "the debate is over" claim that no scientist would ever make. Do you wonder why people are skeptical when those phrases are tossed around? Climate is extremely complex and the best in the world at it still don't know how it works.

Perhaps when those who want to make climate policy stick to proven facts instead of falsehoods and telling people they can't question them then I might be willing to listen. Until then I consider it nothing but BS used for political gain.

Rant over.

 

[pj.mask]

If you're referring to the 97% claim, it was soundly debunked several times. They only counted something like 57 of the 2000 or so people that replied to the survey. Yet, some well known "climate" people still like to use that number.



And then there is the " the science is settled" and "the debate is over" claim that no scientist would ever make. Do you wonder why people are skeptical when those phrases are tossed around? Climate is extremely complex and the best in the world at it still don't know how it works.



Perhaps when those who want to make climate policy stick to proven facts instead of falsehoods and telling people they can't question them then I might be willing to listen. Until then I consider it nothing but BS used for political gain.



Rant over.

I don’t know if I just notice it more or it has been on an increase with questions about birth certificates, anti vaccine, and “fake news” for something true but you don’t like - there are lots of factual arguments where people with the opposite view throw out literally crazy counter arguments.

‘Global warming isn’t real because it snowed, look here is a snowball’ -Senator

If you spend so much time addressing fake arguments that take no effort to create, you don’t get the facts across and the whole debate gets lost in the noise. Especially when the argument above has been discussed and disproven hundreds of times already - how should you respond? Should you regurgitate all the data like that will change the persons mind?

 

[Texas Proud]

Again, most people keep talking about weather and climate... go back to the original post and you will see it is about renewable energy... and how the people who say we can all get to 100% in the next few years just are making up stuff...



This has nothing to do with climate as going renewable has other benefits such as clean air and water... just like hybrid cars get better gas mileage...



And even we could go 100% renewable probably will not have that big an effect on climate without China doing the same...

 

[mh]

Apparently Scotland is getting within realistic range of 100% renewable. Of course they’re quite different than the USA , but still an interesting development

 

[pj.mask]

Apparently Scotland is getting within realistic range of 100% renewable. Of course they’re quite different than the USA , but still an interesting development

People always say that but I don’t really understand the logic. It appears Scotland makes most of its energy from wind power, I haven’t heard any scientific barriers for us doing that in the US. (Just emotional ones: example complaint about windmills visible from golf courses).

10% of their wind generation come from offshore installations. Most of our highly populated states are on the coast. Probably more expensive than onshore but seems fairly developed technology.

So it isn’t that we can’t do it, it is that we don’t?