patrick.net

Evan F. says

Solar works too.. And not just in desert climates! https://news.energysage.com/solar-panels-in-winter-weather-snow-affect-power-production/

Energy sage is a solar company, so they will not be objective. I considered putting solar on my house, but with hurricanes every Fall, strong winds in Fall and Spring which would drop tree branches on solar panels, it becomes pain in the ass.

Fact is, everyone IS to blame for global warming, including Al Gore.

And we must all atone for our guilt by "believing" the AGW Gospel and voting Democrat? The fact that Al Gore bangs the AGW drum while living in a style that spews more "carbon" than an average town, makes me thing Al is just a modern version of the old TV Evangelist. The TV Evangelist did not need to live in a humble giving lifestyle, he just had to spout hard core dogma to keep the flock. I doubt that either the TV Evangelist or Al Gore actually believe what they preach, but it pays handsomely.

I considered putting solar on my house, but with hurricanes every Fall, strong winds in Fall and Spring which would drop tree branches on solar panels, it becomes pain in the ass.

I live on the VA coast, which is also prone to hurricanes, and I have been to quite a few homes with solar panels (we have sponsored "solar tours" every year.) The solar panels are quite durable. The issue is more in cost. It takes about $20k to install enough panels to "net zero," and $20k will pay years of electric bills. But as the tech improves it will become better economics to go solar. Right now it is more "hobby" than cost savings.

HeadSet says

What is wrong with these two present day ideas?

1. Limit Population by curtailing immigration, and let the natural lower fertility rate bring the population to an energy and resource sustainable level.
2. Curtail imports from nations that do not manufacture those products under US style environmental laws.

Those are both good ideas. Another good idea would be to increase research into ways to manage the climate.

Note that neither major party proposes any of these ideas. Both major parties prefer the divide and misrule method: stoke panic among climate alarmists, and denial among the 'god is in charge of the climate' crowd, and sit back to watch the show with some popcorn (and maybe lots of beer). The alarmists, in their panic, say horrible things that destroy their own credibility, and demand corrupt and counter-productive policies, e.g. subsidizing southern hemisphere kleptocracies and the Clinton Foundation. The deniers are at least not proposing harm. Therein lies the "debate," and that explains why Democrats end up losing on this issue.

dr6B says

Need to take into account battery production, which for hybrids involve separation of rare earths, which is extremely energy-consuming. Environmental footprint for Corolla production is much smaller than for hybrids, even if it consumes more fuel when running. There was a research paper ca. 10 yrs ago which looked at this issue, but I can not track it down any more

10 years ago. Can't track it down. Certainly manufacturing has improved in that stretch of time. The fact is, yes, hybrids take more energy to produce, but that is more than offset by their efficiency over the life of the car, even when using non-green sources of electricity.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/does-hybrid-car-production-waste-offset-hybrid-benefits.htm

I think they are now above liquid N2 boiling point, where some technological applications are feasible.

I saw some cryo type superconductors like that in grad school in 1989. One guy even used the superconductor as winding in an sort of electric motor. All done around liquid nitrogen temps. No progress since then? You smart people need to get off your lazy asses.

HeadSet says

The issue is more in cost. It takes about $20k to install enough panels to "net zero," and $20k will pay years of electric bills.

True.. how many years is the big question, I suppose. And your average electric bill is going to go nowhere but up. Most back-of-the-napkin calculations I've seen recently pin solar panels as cost effective after about 7-8 years.

Evan F. says

10 years ago. Can't track it down. Certainly manufacturing has improved in that stretch of time. The fact is, yes, hybrids take more energy to produce, but that is more than offset by their efficiency over the life of the car, even when using non-green sources of electricity.

Thanks, interesting link. I recall that the paper I can not track down was from Berkeley, but I might be wrong.

This from the link

According to another Argonne National Laboratory report, if a plug-in hybrid charges from coal-generated electricity, it could be responsible for emitting up to 10 percent more greenhouse gasses than a conventional vehicle and up to 60 percent more than a standard hybrid

is also very illuminating.

HeadSet says

I think they are now above liquid N2 boiling point, where some technological applications are feasible.

I saw some cryo type superconductors like that in grad school in 1989. One guy even used the superconductor as winding in an sort of electric motor. All done around liquid nitrogen temps. No progress since then? You smart people need to get off your lazy asses.

Compressed H2SO4 at -70C, bitches! Liquid N2 is about -195C.

Evan F. says

Compressed H2SO4 at -70C, bitches! Liquid N2 is about -195C

H2S, I think. Smells of rotten eggs and is toxic. Unfortunately, same problem of not being able to make into wires.

HeadSet says

It takes about $20k to install enough panels to "net zero," and $20k will pay years of electric bills.

About 15 years of my electricity bills is 20K as my house is size of a small closet in Al Gore house :)

dr6B says

This from the link

According to another Argonne National Laboratory report, if a plug-in hybrid charges from coal-generated electricity, it could be responsible for emitting up to 10 percent more greenhouse gasses than a conventional vehicle and up to 60 percent more than a standard hybrid

is also very illuminating.

Yes, fortunately I didn't say plug in hybrid, there's a definite distinction. This from the article is also illuminating:

The Argonne National Laboratory ran a side-by-side comparison of hybrid and conventional vehicles over their entire life cycle, which includes vehicle production, vehicle operation and the energy required to produce fuel for both cars. If you assume that both vehicles travel 160,000 miles (257,495 kilometers) over their lifetime, the conventional vehicle requires 6,500 Btu of energy per mile compared to 4,200 Btu per mile for a hybrid. That higher energy input results in far greater lifetime greenhouse gas emissions for conventional vehicles compared to hybrids, more than 1.1 pounds (500 grams) per mile compared to 0.75 pounds (340 grams) per mile [source: Burnham et al].

dr6B says

H2S, I think. Smells of rotten eggs and is toxic.

You are correct.. I jumped the gun on that one ?

dr6B says

According to another Argonne National Laboratory report, if a plug-in hybrid charges from coal-generated electricity, it could be responsible for emitting up to 10 percent more greenhouse gasses than a conventional vehicle and up to 60 percent more than a standard hybrid

I drive a standard hybrid, Camry XLS. Nice car, gets good mileage! Drives smoothly and has some real punch when I have a Ricky Bobby moment!

I drive a standard hybrid, Camry XLS. Nice car, gets good mileage!

"Yes, but are you a climate denier?" says Al Gore as he blows by you in his new 13 mpg Dodge Hellcat.

Expat says

2016 was a fucking hot year. We cooled through to Feb 2018. But IT'S STILL FUCKING HOTTER THAN EVER.

Can anyone else see the contradiction here?

Rhetorical question.

Onvacation says

Can anyone else see the contradiction here?

Yes, but to someone in a panic, the point is to say extreme things, even contradictory or horrible things, in order to signal virtue and to shout down any discussion of potentially good ideas. The Democrats in particular have stoked a 'money or your life' panic mentality, because they profit from panic not debate.

Onvacation says

Expat says

2016 was a fucking hot year. We cooled through to Feb 2018. But IT'S STILL FUCKING HOTTER THAN EVER.

Can anyone else see the contradiction here?

Rhetorical question.

I'm glad it's a rhetorical question, because then it doesn't necessitate an answer.. it's becoming exhausting trying to respond to this.

curious2 says

Yes, but to someone in a panic, the point is to say extreme things, even contradictory or horrible things, in order to signal virtue and to shout down any discussion of potentially good ideas

Who has 'shouted down' those ideas? I'd say they're worth considering, but realistically they're not nearly enough.

Just try to remember that 17 of the last 18 years are the hottest on record.

Evan F. says

Who has 'shouted down' those ideas?

Since you asked, I will give you an example from memory, though I cannot link to it. At a Democratic party function, a speaker was talking about policy ideas, not only about climate but more broadly, and invited suggestions from the audience. A ~20yo male got the microphone and began shouting about how climate change would cut his life expectancy in half. At his age, that implied he expected climate change to kill him (and probably everyone else) by 2050. He demanded the party focus on reducing CO2 emissions. Now, if you feel like trolling an internet forum, you could focus on the fact that he was given a microphone and so he wasn't literally in that moment shouting down other speakers. His rant had the effect of shutting down discussion though. Similarly, look at the horrible comment above. You could say that user was typing, not necessarily shouting, but the point is that no one can reason with panic. So, the DNCe stoke and exploit the panic to push their 'money or your life' demands, e.g. pay more than $100bn/year to corrupt kleptocracies and the Clinton Foundation.

I have also seen geo-engineering ideas shut down a different way, without shouting. There seems to be a new religion of "mother nature" and "mother earth", possibly related to some wave of feminism. The feeling seems to be that we must return to mother nature, and stop toxic males and their inventions from assaulting mother earth. Geo-engineering is yet another toxic male science, and the only example presented in that "debate" is to spray sulfuric acid into the atmosphere. Limiting the presentation to that example is not quite a straw man, because some have actually said that would work, but the idea has the effect of reductio ad absurdum: there are other ideas, but people recoil from the idea of spraying sulfuric acid into the air and that ends the discussion.

One way and another, the game is to narrow the 'debate' to the two options that have major party approval: kleptocracy or nothing. Neither of these would actually enable people to manage the climate, so the issue can be exploited ad nauseam.

Evan F. says

I think they used these things called thermometers. Heard of em?

Yep. They used them to measure the WORLDWIDE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE down to hundredths of a degree!

Evan F. says

But hey, don't let a little thing like data ruin your argument. Keep going!

You fundamentally miss the point of the question.

Let's examine. Your answer is: Evan F. says

I think they used these things called thermometers. Heard of em?

Lol. Ok so where would a thermometer (or thermometers) be placed to measure worldwide temperature? When would measurements be read? Would things like deforestation be taken into effect or are we measuring thermometers under tree canopies one year, and in the middle of a city the next? What, if any, allowance is being made for modern improvements in methods so as to compare apples to apples w the past?

If you cant answer process questions about worldwide temperature measurements, then you shouldnt be discussing the topic.

CBOEtrader says

Ok so where would a thermometer (or thermometers) be placed to measure worldwide temperature?

"To get a complete picture of Earth’s temperature, scientists combine measurements from the air above land and the ocean surface collected by ships, buoys and sometimes satellites, too.

The temperature at each land and ocean station is compared daily to what is ‘normal’ for that location and time, typically the long-term average over a 30-year period. The differences are called an ‘anomalies’ and they help scientists evaluate how temperature is changing over time.

A ‘positive’ anomaly means the temperature is warmer than the long-term average, a ‘negative’ anomaly means it’s cooler.

Daily anomalies are averaged together over a whole month. These are, in turn, used to work out temperature anomalies from season-to-season and year-to-year."

And that is how they know that 2016 (the hottest year EVER!) was 0.004 degrees warmer than 2015.

Evan F. says

Just try to remember that 17 of the last 18 years are the hottest on record.

The temperature peaked in 2016 and is falling.

September was the 4th warmest in history. Prepare for colder years to come as the sun's activity cycles down.

CO2 will not keep the planet warm.

Onvacation says

Prepare for colder years to come as the sun's activity cycles down.

The notion that a solar minimum or even grand minimum will do anything to stem the current warming trend has already been largely debunked.

curious2 says

I have also seen geo-engineering ideas shut down a different way, without shouting. There seems to be a new religion of "mother nature" and "mother earth", possibly related to some wave of feminism. The feeling seems to be that we must return to mother nature, and stop toxic males and their inventions from assaulting mother earth. Geo-engineering is yet another toxic male science, and the only example presented in that "debate" is to spray sulfuric acid into the atmosphere. Limiting the presentation to that example is not quite a straw man, because some have actually said that would work, but the idea has the effect of reductio ad absurdum: there are other ideas, but people recoil from the idea of spraying sulfuric acid into the air and that ends the discussion.

At some point we need to mitigate Global Warming, but a few degrees more would be really beneficial, considering the huge swaths of land that would be open for at least one crop in Siberia and the Canadian Tundra. Also, we'd have more diverse forestry in the North, where most of the land mass on Earth is (compared to similar lattitudes South or the near the Equator; the Americas has very little land mass near the Equator, and ocean currents made the Sahara into a desert where once it had been as productive as the Central Valley California or Southern Italy).

Evan F. says

Onvacation says

Prepare for colder years to come as the sun's activity cycles down.

The notion that a solar minimum or even grand minimum will do anything to stem the current warming trend has already been largely debunked.

By the same scientists that created AGW in the first place....the funds to "publish or perish" must continue....

I think Evan needs to provide some links to this “debunking” he is claiming.
I ran a search on “solar minimum debunked” and only came up with sheer opinion pieces and YouTube crap.

Evan F. says

the current warming trend has already been largely debunked.

Agreed! Florida and Manhattan are still above water, the icecaps are intact, and mass wetbulb die offs are just alarmist fantasy.

At some point we need to mitigate Global Warming,

May not be any way to do that, if the receding Ice Age keeps continuing for the next 10,000 years. I sure we can all agree on the need to decrease pollution, though. Wind and solar are coming in strong in Virginia, as large off-shore wind and very large acreage solar farms have just been built or are in the works. To make renewables feasible, we need help from the general public. Stuff like:

Laws prohibiting any local municipality or HOA from disallowing roof-top solar panels
Laws prohibiting any local municipality or HOA from disallowing clothes lines
Severely tiered pricing of electricity, water, and natural gas. Allow low prices for the first XX use, them prices shoot up for the high energy users. With increased costs above a certain level, people will invent new efficiencies and conservation methods.
Limit 1st world population growth. More industrialized people = more waste, resource depletion, and pollution, no way around it. Curtail 3rd world immigration and let the natural decreased fertility of the 1st world bring population down to a level sustainable by renewable resources.

Quigley says

I think Evan needs to provide some links to this “debunking” he is claiming.

How many solar minimums have their been during the global tempetature uptrentd of the past 50 years ?

Debunking it isn't rocket science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

marcus says

How many solar minimums have their been during the global tempetature uptrentd of the past 50 years ?

What exactly is your argument? That we haven’t seen a solar minimum in the past fifty years so they don’t exist? Pretty dumb argument if that’s it. If it’s not your argument, then your point is as clear as mud.

marcus says

the global tempetature uptrentd of the past 50 years ?

Do you know how much the temperature has gone up in the last 50 years? Which temperature data set are you looking at?

HeadSet says

we can all agree on the need to decrease pollution

It never was about saving the planet but controlling the people.

marcus says

Debunking it isn't rocket science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

Sure isn't.

Onvacation says

HeadSet says

we can all agree on the need to decrease pollution

It never was about saving the planet but controlling the people.

True, especially since the AGW crowd seems to have this playbook:

Always keep the discussion confined to how AGW is real - never talk about solutions. If the topic of solutions comes up, revert back to how AGW is real and Deniers are dupes. Follow the Catechism of Faith in AGW and denounce the Satan of Deniers, confess you and your societies Original Sin of being a carbon spewer, and atone by voting Democrat. If some Heretic keeps pressing about solutions, mention some politician talking about increased CAFE standards (vehicle mile per gallon requirement) by 2030 or so.

And HeadSet, they only talk about primitivism and pie-in-the-sky unscalable tech (like Solar and Wind) as a response.

Don't talk about Solar Microwaved Power, Sun Shades, Nuclear Power (especially not involving Light Water Reactors), etc.

Only restricting and hamstringing consumption and production.

www.youtube.com/embed/vJcev0Jq3Ig

And HeadSet, only talk about primitivism and pie-in-the-sky unscalable tech (like Solar and Wind) as a response.

Actually, the solar part may be scalable. As the panels improve in efficiency and cost, more will be installed. Solar roof shingles may become the norm in new construction. This will happen naturally, as solar will become a cheap way to get electricity.

What I like is that I can now look realistically at building a cabin at a remote mountain lake in the Blue Ridge. Land is cheap there, since it is off the grid. But if I can use solar along with a Tesla battery and efficient 12 volt appliances, I can make it comfortable. That area does have cel service, but admittedly low bar.

According to NOAA records, 2018 has gone down as the 6th warmest year since satellite records started in 1979, which was the lowpoint in a cold cycle. The current warming cycle ended in 2016, the hottest year EVER!

Co2 is at a record high. Anyone have a guess as to why the temperature is dropping?

It's not co2.

Onvacation says

According to NOAA records, 2018 has gone down as the 6th warmest year since satellite records started in 1979, which was the lowpoint in a cold cycle. The current warming cycle ended in 2016, the hottest year EVER!

Co2 is at a record high. Anyone have a guess as to why the temperature is dropping?

It's not co2.

HRC crossed her legs?

January THIRD HOTTEST JANUARY IN HISTORY!
Only twice before has January been this HOT!

Prepare for doom!

That's like 20 degrees in Liberal Dog Years. Adjusted for inflation of course, White people need not apply.