MurphyGuy
It just needs a bigger hammer
- Joined
- May 20, 2020
- Messages
- 4,129
He's not kidding.. that is how some people actually think.. and it will never change.
A different way to think about climate change
- Thread starter John Frum
- Start date
He's not kidding.. that is how some people actually think.. and it will never change.
LOL...you have to be kidding.
BTW...there yo go again!
Ron Johnson: Climate change is ‘bulls—‘
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) downplayed the dangers of climate change at a Republican luncheon earlier this summer, according to a new report. “I don’t know about you guys, but I thin…thehill.com
These are the 130 current members of Congress who have doubted or denied climate change
A majority of scientists agree that human activity contributed to the warming of the Earth's climate, but climate denial still exists in Congress.www.businessinsider.com
Mo Brooks' reason the sea level is rising
View attachment 78115
As I said just a few posts ago, there are the grettas on one side and the ron johnsons on the other. Just because they (collectively) are not reacting with your desired amount of hysteria does not mean they (collectively) do not believe that the climate is in fact changing.
As I said before, COME UP WITH A FEASIBLE SOLUTION and they will not have a problem implementing it. Stop sending retards like gretta out there to try to shame. It just makes them dig in and double down.
Conservative party members vote down resolution to officially recognize climate change - National | Globalnews.ca
The motion expanding the party's existing policy on the environment was one of the most contentious of the package put before delegates.
globalnews.ca
Republicans in Congress are out of step with the American public on climate | Brookings
Though a majority of Americans are concerned about climate change, Congressional Republicans stand steadfast against serious legislation to deal with climate, Samantha Gross writes.
www.brookings.edu
Did Trump say climate change was a Chinese hoax?
During her take-no-prisoners foreign policy speech on June 2, Hillary Clinton reminded listeners of controversial things
www.politifact.com
Of course not all conservatives deny climate change....
The fact is that we are dumping the waste products of burning fossil fuels into the atmosphere. Putting a cost on that dumping, by implementing a carbon tax (Pigouvian tax) will speed up the transition to cleaner energy. That is how the free market is supposed to work.
Sadly we can't even end fossil fuel subsidies because to many policy makers are getting campaign money from big oil. I am not expecting them to put a significant carbon tax in place.
The change will happen regardless since prices for renwables are already lower and it looks like Chinese manufacturers will lead the way.
@bruceb58 and @MurphyGuy
Here is the frustration for me being left of center on some issues and right of center on others:
The left wants radical change to address climate change. The right does not want to destroy the planet either but radical is not in their wheel house. The left and right needs to work together but because of the width of the political divide neither can meet in the middle and this has been going on for decades.
When I was in my early 20s and was in the trades, As a journeyman welder, 3rd year apprentice steel fabricator and 4th class power engineer, I was exposed to a huge variety information, perspectives and technologies, especially in the energy sector.
In Prince George BC, right above the electrical substation I was almost done working at helping build, my next job was at the new university they were building. The project was to install, commission and train staff on a very cool cogen plant they were installing as part of the environmental commitment the university had made. As basically any building in Canada, it has a huge requirement for heat 6 months each year and through the use of cogen, the electricity they produce would have literally one half the CO2 emissions of any other fossil fuel produced electricity.
At the time BC was electricity independent. We had the W.A.C Bennett dam that was built in the 60s which along with a few others produced an excess amount of power and BC was continuously exporting excess power to other provinces and into the states as well. Up until the 90s it was actually illegal to install a cogen plant in BC because a law passed by (I believe) the W.A.C. Bennett government. It wanted the province to run off of this amazing clean hydro electricity. This was short sighted unfortunately because the provinces major industry being forestry produced a huge amount of waste. This waste could have very easily been used to fuel thermoelectric plants but instead was fed into "bee hive" burners and simply burnt off.
The above project was partially installed when the wife of the university CEO found out about the plan and had a hissy fit over the use of fossil fuel to produce electricity. Being a complete pathetic loser he faithfully repeated the mantra "Happy wife, happy life" and pressured the executive to abandon the approach. This was in spite of the fact that the LiBr absorption chillers already being installed. The natural gas ICE generators were canceled and normal NG boilers ordered in their place and the University now uses twice as much natural gas in the summer to run the cooling system as it does to heat the university in the winter.
The lefts insistence on walking away from fossil fuels has done nothing but accelerate what ever part of climate change is caused by humans. Northern USA, Canada, China, Russsia, all should be using co-generation in every residential, commercial and industrial building. Is it the answer? Does it meet current emission goals? No. But it would have produced a massive reduction and it was implementable 50 years ago! Most importantly, there is a business model for it and conservatives would have gotten behind it. But instead, the left has used a learning disabled teenager to shriek at everyone and has caused the right to dig in.
For anyone that wants to claim residential cogen is not possible or practical: https://global.honda/innovation/technology/power/cogeneration-picturebook.html
Here is the frustration for me being left of center on some issues and right of center on others:
The left wants radical change to address climate change. The right does not want to destroy the planet either but radical is not in their wheel house. The left and right needs to work together but because of the width of the political divide neither can meet in the middle and this has been going on for decades.
When I was in my early 20s and was in the trades, As a journeyman welder, 3rd year apprentice steel fabricator and 4th class power engineer, I was exposed to a huge variety information, perspectives and technologies, especially in the energy sector.
In Prince George BC, right above the electrical substation I was almost done working at helping build, my next job was at the new university they were building. The project was to install, commission and train staff on a very cool cogen plant they were installing as part of the environmental commitment the university had made. As basically any building in Canada, it has a huge requirement for heat 6 months each year and through the use of cogen, the electricity they produce would have literally one half the CO2 emissions of any other fossil fuel produced electricity.
At the time BC was electricity independent. We had the W.A.C Bennett dam that was built in the 60s which along with a few others produced an excess amount of power and BC was continuously exporting excess power to other provinces and into the states as well. Up until the 90s it was actually illegal to install a cogen plant in BC because a law passed by (I believe) the W.A.C. Bennett government. It wanted the province to run off of this amazing clean hydro electricity. This was short sighted unfortunately because the provinces major industry being forestry produced a huge amount of waste. This waste could have very easily been used to fuel thermoelectric plants but instead was fed into "bee hive" burners and simply burnt off.
The above project was partially installed when the wife of the university CEO found out about the plan and had a hissy fit over the use of fossil fuel to produce electricity. Being a complete pathetic loser he faithfully repeated the mantra "Happy wife, happy life" and pressured the executive to abandon the approach. This was in spite of the fact that the LiBr absorption chillers already being installed. The natural gas ICE generators were canceled and normal NG boilers ordered in their place and the University now uses twice as much natural gas in the summer to run the cooling system as it does to heat the university in the winter.
The lefts insistence on walking away from fossil fuels has done nothing but accelerate what ever part of climate change is caused by humans. Northern USA, Canada, China, Russsia, all should be using co-generation in every residential, commercial and industrial building. Is it the answer? Does it meet current emission goals? No. But it would have produced a massive reduction and it was implementable 50 years ago! Most importantly, there is a business model for it and conservatives would have gotten behind it. But instead, the left has used a learning disabled teenager to shriek at everyone and has caused the right to dig in.
For anyone that wants to claim residential cogen is not possible or practical: https://global.honda/innovation/technology/power/cogeneration-picturebook.html
MurphyGuy
It just needs a bigger hammer
- Joined
- May 20, 2020
- Messages
- 4,129
That is a reasonable statement containing some truth.
The very definition of "conservative" is "to resist change"... Hey man, I still use a flip phone and would have preferred one with a rotary dial...
Unfortunately, humanity has put itself in a position where radical change is needed if we don't want to kill ourselves off. Change is always uncomfortable, and quite frequently painful, but we can't lollygag about it this time.
Had the conservative right listened to the science 40 years ago, the change could have been implemented slowly and have allowed them to adjust in the "uncomfortable range".. those days are gone, now its going to be painful because we don't have a choice. There is no more "meet in the middle" on climate issues, we either get it done or we will likely go extinct. Truth be told, we might already be too late. Even if humans magically disappeared from the planet today, some of the predictions suggest the planet will still tip into runaway warming because we already screwed up the balance.
Transportation and power generation are the biggest contributors to our carbon problem so it stands to reason that those activities are what we target first.
Fossil fuels need to be cut out. As for your project, all I can say is that when politics meets science, bad things happen..
Im not trying to point fingers. What I am trying to do is point out that the nature of both sides needs to be taken into account. The left is in the process of losing power. All the crazy gender/racial/climate/covid garbage that has been happening for the past few years is about to catch up with democrats and 2022 is probably not going to be favorable for them. Then, what is going to happen to all the climate issues? Bottom of the pile again. Pick an issue and change it, then move on. If climate is it than work on climate. You can not try to brow beat people into doing what you want. It wont work out.
You do not make change by trying to cram it down peoples throats and that is the approach the left seems to default to. Maybe its the emotion of being creative or the lack of conscientiousness associated with creativity. IDK
MurphyGuy
It just needs a bigger hammer
- Joined
- May 20, 2020
- Messages
- 4,129
When they sounded the alarm 40 years ago, no one was cramming anything.. Then 10 years past and still no action.. Then 20 years and no action.
Here we are 40 years later.. Being nice isn't working, and when nice doesn't work, its time to not be nice.
I'm not real happy with a lot of the things either the dems or the republicans do.. but at some point, one must choose what is most important, and when the house is burning down around you, you don't argue about who's turn it is to wash the dishes.
We have lots of issues to solve, but none of them mean anything or have any consequences if we're all dead or dying. When the west coast is burning, the south is flooded, and the corn belt isn't producing food because of a 5 year drought, what then? "I'm sorry I was wrong about global warming, lets work together to fix this" isn't going to cut it.. Apologies and promises to do better aren't going to matter because it will be too late. There are no second chances here.
This is the problem with hard core conservatives, they won't stop or change unless you force them to. We had to go to war to stop the slavery, then pass laws with criminal penalties to stop the oppression and persecution.. Its always a fight because reasoning with them doesn't work.
It really isn't that big of an issue as most things the conservatives refuse to change aren't going to kill everyone. Sometimes you just have to let the other side have their way because the fight isn't worth the reward. Climate change isn't one of those inconsequential issues.
What I find most odd is that we have to beat someone up to save them from themselves.. You'd think that when the boat was sinking, everyone would work together to plug the hole.. Unfortunately, the conservatives are more concerned with greed and profit.
I appreciate the frustration, but it isnt going to work with the present political system. The vast majority of people that are raising the alarms and making the noise are not modifying their behavior any more than the ones that are ignoring the issue.
Im in Alberta. The Coquihalla highway had something like 30 washouts. No traffic for over a month and now just single lane truck traffic. Abbotsford, and Merit were flooded out after several small towns were burn this year. Its obvious crazy weather is happening but there is no forcing anything IMO. In China, sure, but not here. We will half measure our way to the end.
MurphyGuy
It just needs a bigger hammer
- Joined
- May 20, 2020
- Messages
- 4,129
While that is true, it really isn't the issue, or an issue.
You can't spread awareness to those willing to listen without getting on a plane.. you can't run a large company and keep the resources that allow you to influence policy without emitting a bunch of carbon. That, and the fact that their contribution either way basically equates to nothing in the larger picture.
What you propose these activist do to follow their own advice would also prevent them from being activists. Its a nice trick the conservatives have used. Unfortunately, and this is part of the problem with our society, is that people no longer have good moral compasses.
And as I said in an earlier post, I learned long ago to never use someone else's behavior to justify my own. This means that my moral code does not allow me to point at someone else and say "what they're doing makes what I'm doing acceptable" This touches the realm of mob mentality.. when protesters and rioters see others doing bad things, the individual doesn't stop to analyze their own behavior, and a snowball effect is created.
Sheep following the proverbial shepherd.
As for me, I am raising the alarm and I have done everything I can to reduce my carbon footprint. Instead of fancy vacations, I have invested heavily in solar, put in a large 2000 gallon rainwater system, our family restricts unnecessary travel, we grow a lot of our own food, I installed new windows on the house, and use solar generated electric heating as much as possible. And every year we work to do more.
I have a natural gas furnace in my home, we haven't turned it on for almost 3 years except to run it once or twice per winter just to test it and keep the cob webs out.
Our kitchen stove is still natural gas and when it dies, I will replace it with something electric like an induction unit or something. Our microwave is also a convection oven, and since it runs on 120volts, we use it for cooking as often as we can.
Our entire house uses LED lights and I'm even replacing our outdoor power tools with battery run models.
I do what is right, moral, and ethical to the best of my ability.. I don't base my behavior or decisions on what the crowd does.
Solutions to a problem can't be found when a significant portion of the lawmakers deny there is a problem.
I thought it was big oil that was the culprit, but COVID has shown that it is partisan politics where one party oposes everything the other party is for, even when it literally kills a large number of their voter base.
I thought it was big oil that was the culprit, but COVID has shown that it is partisan politics where one party oposes everything the other party is for, even when it literally kills a large number of their voter base.
Great, youve switched to solar and are proud of how right you are. How moral you are. How ethical you are.
You might have to add ignorant to that list of accolades.
The Greenhouse Gas That Nobody Knew
When industry began using NF3 in high-tech manufacturing, it was hailed as a way to fight global warming. But new research shows that this gas has 17,000 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide and is rapidly increasing in the atmosphere and that's turning an environmental success story...
e360.yale.edu
This information has been out there for a long time, but ideologues dont want to talk about it because such inconvenient truths (where have I heard that before?) get in the way of their ability to use environmentalism as a club to beat their political opponents with.
It would be interesting to see a topic on NF3 in the general discussion page of this site, Im sure this would be a reality check for a lot of people here.
Some research has concluded that when amortized over the estimated 25 year life span of photovoltaic panels, the use of NF3 in their manufacturing negates any gains in GGE vs conventionally generated power.
A similar finding was revealed on hydro power. When a dam is built, particularly in warmer climate latitudes, massive amounts of living organisms are killed and buried underwater when the land is flooded. These organisms release methane gas for decades as the water turbulently churns through the generating turbines. Because of this hydro power, when new dams have to be constructed, is considered as damaging as coal fired power.
I dont know if youre familiar with the environmental disaster called shipbreaking going on in certain Indian ocean coastal countries, but it was entirely caused by environmental activists in the EU. Concerned with possible oil spills after the Exxon Valdez incident they insisted on a virtual overnight immediate ban on single hull tankers in European ports.
The result was that just as immediately, over 2500 registered hulls worldwide became worthless and obsolete.
This naturally overwhelmed the established shipbreaking yards and the ship owners had no choice but to send them to those impoverished nations whose corrupt officials cared little about the long term health of their coastal waters.
Im sure those Euro activists all lay in bed at night thinking how right and moral and ethical they are. The mess they created is 10,000 miles away.
MurphyGuy
It just needs a bigger hammer
- Joined
- May 20, 2020
- Messages
- 4,129
Its an opinion article, not peer reviewed research.. still interesting. I had to look up NF3 and wiki says about the same things in general, but their numbers vary wildly and are much lower in the estimations of what makes it into the atmosphere.Great, youve switched to solar and are proud of how right you are. How moral you are. How ethical you are.
You might have to add ignorant to that list of accolades.
The Greenhouse Gas That Nobody Knew
When industry began using NF3 in high-tech manufacturing, it was hailed as a way to fight global warming. But new research shows that this gas has 17,000 times the warming potential of carbon dioxide and is rapidly increasing in the atmosphere and that's turning an environmental success story...
This information has been out there for a long time, but ideologues dont want to talk about it because such inconvenient truths (where have I heard that before?) get in the way of their ability to use environmentalism as a club to beat their political opponents with.
It would be interesting to see a topic on NF3 in the general discussion page of this site, Im sure this would be a reality check for a lot of people here.
Some research has concluded that when amortized over the estimated 25 year life span of photovoltaic panels, the use of NF3 in their manufacturing negates any gains in GGE vs conventionally generated power.
The numbers don't add up to anything even remotely considered significant. Translate even the article's (exaggerated?) numbers into tons of CO2 equivalent and it still works out to something ridiculously small for the returns we get and the amount we already generate.
Its a good article, maybe it will bring light to the issue and force the manufacturers to be more careful with the emissions. A peer reviewed analysis will be needed before an opinion is formed. It would be foolish to form an opinion based on an opinion article.
While methane is technically a greenhouse gas, something like 20 times more powerful than CO2, it is also broken down in the atmosphere relatively quickly. This is why we look for methane on exoplanets.. While there are natural sources, life is the main producer of it, and without life continuously replenishing the supply in the atmosphere, the methane disappears pretty quickly.
Sorry, I screwed up the rest of your quoted reply and can't figure out how to get it back. Concerning the ship breaking, while I am not familiar with your story, I am well aware that politics and the bad policies the politicians come up with, can screw up good science policy. This is nothing new and I'm sure you could probably come up with lots of these stories.
The NF3 is not a problem.. it COULD become a problem, but it is not a current problem.. and its being brought to light so that we can correct the potential issue. Now, if they do nothing about it in the future and ignore it for the next decade, then it becomes an issue.
My solar panels have a 30 year warranty, not 25... that is a significant difference and will change the math significantly. Furthermore, that 30 year figure is just the warranty.. the panels will most likely be generating power for far longer than that.
Bob B
Emperor Of Solar
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2019
- Messages
- 8,590
Maybe this should be another thread .... but I decided to throw it out there to see how many attacks I could get .... LOL
I was watching a National Geographic show that got me to thinking a little outside the box ..... maybe crazy idea ... maybe something to it.
What if what's happening to the climate is more about the earths "system" for maintaining it's oxygen supply? It seems like the earth somehow manages to maintain a pretty constant 20.95% oxygen at sea level.
That is a somewhat amazing thing since there is so much fluctuation in the things which consume oxygen.
While it used to be thought that the earth supply of oxygen was dependent on the production in the Amazon rainforests ... scientists are beginning to discover that may not actually be the case. They now think that Amazon forest animals actually consume all or nearly all the oxygen the forest creates.
There is a more indirect effect ........ that is the nutrient run off from the Amazon river that feeds diatoms and phytoplankton in the ocean ... and together, they produce a large % of the earth's available oxygen.
Diatoms also thrive in the oceans where melting glaciers dump nutrients into the ocean ..... They die off in those ocean areas when the ice melting stops.... This has been observed from pictures taken from space ..... Just something to think about. Is the rising Co2 level ... which causes temperatures to warm and melt glaciers actually part of the mechanism for maintaining a stable oxygen percent? Are the earths systems so desperate to create oxygen that it must sacrifice glacial ice to achieve it?
When oxygen is consumed .... Co2 is generated .... in most cases I could think about ..... So.... What if we looked at the other end of this ... oxygen. Think about ways to reduce oxygen consumption. Think about other ways to generate oxygen.
When we use solar or wind power, we actually are preventing the consumption of oxygen. Nuclear power would do the same..
Fuel cells, on the other hand .... don't have a Co2 byproduct but do consume oxygen. Is the lack of Co2 emission actually a bad thing for the oxygen supply?
The earth somehow manages to maintain a steady 20.95% oxygen at sea level .... how does it do that?
I was watching a National Geographic show that got me to thinking a little outside the box ..... maybe crazy idea ... maybe something to it.
What if what's happening to the climate is more about the earths "system" for maintaining it's oxygen supply? It seems like the earth somehow manages to maintain a pretty constant 20.95% oxygen at sea level.
That is a somewhat amazing thing since there is so much fluctuation in the things which consume oxygen.
While it used to be thought that the earth supply of oxygen was dependent on the production in the Amazon rainforests ... scientists are beginning to discover that may not actually be the case. They now think that Amazon forest animals actually consume all or nearly all the oxygen the forest creates.
There is a more indirect effect ........ that is the nutrient run off from the Amazon river that feeds diatoms and phytoplankton in the ocean ... and together, they produce a large % of the earth's available oxygen.
Diatoms also thrive in the oceans where melting glaciers dump nutrients into the ocean ..... They die off in those ocean areas when the ice melting stops.... This has been observed from pictures taken from space ..... Just something to think about. Is the rising Co2 level ... which causes temperatures to warm and melt glaciers actually part of the mechanism for maintaining a stable oxygen percent? Are the earths systems so desperate to create oxygen that it must sacrifice glacial ice to achieve it?
When oxygen is consumed .... Co2 is generated .... in most cases I could think about ..... So.... What if we looked at the other end of this ... oxygen. Think about ways to reduce oxygen consumption. Think about other ways to generate oxygen.
When we use solar or wind power, we actually are preventing the consumption of oxygen. Nuclear power would do the same..
Fuel cells, on the other hand .... don't have a Co2 byproduct but do consume oxygen. Is the lack of Co2 emission actually a bad thing for the oxygen supply?
The earth somehow manages to maintain a steady 20.95% oxygen at sea level .... how does it do that?
Last edited:
There may be a better answer but CO2 is measured in PPM O2 is measured in %. Proportionally it does not take much O2 away from the supply to double the CO2.
Bob B
Emperor Of Solar
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2019
- Messages
- 8,590
I'm just saying maybe that is a control mechanism that we don't understand yet .... maybe Bill Gates should consider flying planes over the ocean and feeding nutrients to the diatoms and phytoplankton instead of trying to develop a plan to seed the upper atmosphere to block sunlight.
Maybe the earth's systems care more about maintaining the oxygen level than the Co2 Level .... maybe Co2 is used as a tool to create more oxygen once the oxygen is consumed.
I would almost guarantee that is the case!
Bob B
Emperor Of Solar
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2019
- Messages
- 8,590
I've always been a ... step back and look at the big picture .... kind of guy. In the case of the science I am talking about, that is exactly what they are doing. They are looking at the earth from space and seeing things they don't understand ... why are there all those streaks of different colors in the ocean that come and go .... watch a huge sand storm in one part of the world actually blow across the ocean and fertilize the Amazon forest.
On Disney, the National Geographic show is .... One Strange Rock .... episode 1. There was a previous season with a different name. There have been some really good episodes where they kinda force you to see things in a different way.
The largest natural contribution to climate change is solar variation, the cycles from the 40s through 90s were so active they may have caused such significant polar melting that the resulting methane release caused sustained forcing of temps. C02 doesnt just drive temps, temps can drive C02 levels.
That chart is for sunspots, hence the graph's label on that axis.
Here is a good article that uses this exact graph
Similar threads
