BREAKING: U.S. O-U-T of Paris Climate Accord

a reply to: D8Tee

No promises on when I'll get a chance to look through it, but yeah, I can do that. It's a brilliant design from what I've seen so far and could revolutionize the industry.

TheRedneck

a reply to: face23785

Yes, it appears to me that they have not learned nothing from how they handled their campaign. It takes a while for the facts to get out there. I'll admit that when I first seen 'An Inconvenient Truth', I didn't much question it. The political climate is different now, there is room for questions and debate. The hyperbole will be exposed and people will become more aware that this was one big money and power grab. Ditching the Paris Agreement is just the first step in Ebells 9 part plan, I'm quite certain Trump will move forward with all nine steps.

a reply to: ANNED

I happen to believe those papers.

I was born poor; we didn't have the luxury of fancy medicines or doctors whenever we coughed. As a result, I never get sick... I have been around people who thought they were going to die from the flu and never sneezed once. I have no allergies: no hay fever, no reaction to poison oak, poison ivy, or cow-itch vine. I have eaten food that sickened my friends on several occasions and never noticed it until they mentioned it. I have washed my hands in gasoline, diesel fuel, and acetone... and never had any ill effects from it.

My sister came along 8 years later when we had better access to medicines and doctors. She gets sick very easily and is allergic to those plants I mentioned. Gasoline irritates her skin terribly.

Anecdotal, I know, but offered as supporting evidence for your conclusion.

TheRedneck

a reply to: D8Tee

I go back even farther. In the 1980s there was a promotion where a 'big secret' was advertised to be revealed soon. Those ads played for a couple of months, then changed to advertisements about the 'carbon footprint.' Then came the explanations of what a carbon footprint was, why it was bad, and how to decrease yours. Typical Hollywood promotion.

I believed it at first... until I got to considering what carbon dioxide was. I literally fell for the hype. But then, as I began to question the propaganda, the 'hockey stick' was introduced, and I knew it was wrong the first time I saw it. I started studying the conclusions reached and realized they were an unscientific load of bull-potatoes.

When I forced myself to watch "An Inconvenient Truth," I literally laughed out loud, several times. Then I started considering why this was being put forth, and realized it was all about money and power. To date, I have not seen a single paper that changes my mind. 30 years of inconclusive research, 30 years of failed predictions, and still people swallow it hook, line, and sinker.

*sigh*

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Ever seen this 1 minute tv ad exxon did?

a reply to: D8Tee

No, I hadn't... but I like it!

I wish more could see it...

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

I stumbled across it years ago when I first started researching, I've never forgotten it.

I'm not sure if thats it's only youtube posting, but it's only got 2500 views and one comment. You know, my great grandparents lived without the benefits of fossil fuels, they did all right, but the world has benefitted so much from them, and now they are painted black, demonized. I just don't get it. Maybe a certain percentage of the population carry a defective gene, and at levels over 350 ppmv they slip into a mental retardation.

I call this advertisement video propaganda borne of greed blinded by an obsession of power & wealth with a total loss of social empathy. A manifestation of a psychopath.

a reply to: D8Tee

Maybe a certain percentage of the population carry a defective gene, and at levels over 350 ppmv they slip into a mental retardation.

HAHAHAHA!

Thanks, best line so far today!

Oil has been a massive boon to human development. Without it, we'd still be plowing fields by mule and hoping to grow enough to feed ourselves. But, and this is just my opinion, I tend to agree with the doomsayers in one aspect: it's time to advance past it for most applications.

Where we disagree is that I don't want to go back to mule-plowing to do it. We need a better alternative before we switch. Efficiency is wonderful, but efficiency will never accomplish the goal without options for production. So many people can't seem to grasp that. As long as we do not have a fully viable, proven, dependable source of alternate energy, we are stuck with oil and simply have to make the best of it.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

This is exactly the point I was trying to make earlier in this thread, or it might have been the other one. The efficiency of the green alternatives just isn't there yet. It's not economically sustainable to power the country with any one or any combination of the green sources. Instead of wasting money trying to subsidize what is a failing industry right now, we should be funneling that money into R&D to try to advance the technology to the point where it is commercially viable. Right now all that subsidy money is doing is making a few billionaires richer. I thought the left was against that #?

a reply to: face23785

There's not a one size fits all environmental solution out there right now, and I don't think we'll ever have one short of fusion and space mining.

However, there are a lot of small things we can do that would add up to a big impact. Here's some technologies that are usable right now:

1. Nuclear energy. I don't just mean building new plants either, but also committing to storing waste responsibly such as in Yucca Mountain. We have some very good plant designs these days, additionally Thorium is very promising and we could start research back up on that. If I remember correctly, India is currently the worlds leader in Thorium research... this is an area where other major population centers can definitely pull their own weight.

2. Geothermal power. The Ring of Fire has excellent geothermal reserves. That hits major population centers in China, Australia, the US, Japan, and New Zealand, among some other smaller countries. Geothermal reserves extend deep into the US, and the potential reserves we have could supply 1/3 of American energy. This is a known, proven, and safe technology and it's cheap. It's actually cheaper than coal.

3. Hydroponic and Vertical farming. Both systems are energy efficient and use less than 2% of the water that traditional farming methods use. Considering that fresh water is soon to enter crisis mode, and that farming is our biggest water waster, this could be important. Since it takes place in controlled greenhouses, it's also less prone to weather disasters like droughts, heavy storms, and so on. It's a nice refuge for bees too since it removes the need for pesticides.

4. High speed rail. Rail is still the best mover of goods we have. Some nations have already moved to more efficient rail lines, but the rail system in the US is very antiquated. A new system would create thousands (millions?) of good paying jobs for the next couple decades, speed up delivery, improve safety, and in the long run reduce the cost of transport. Passenger rail could help here too as a travel option between cities.

5. More efficient roads. In the eastern US especially, where things aren't laid out in a grid pattern (this changes around the midwest when land survey methods changed), there's a lot of room for improvement in making more direct road networks to decrease fuel use and lower travel time. East coast roads also tend to be the most congested since they're the oldest, and consequently have the fewest lanes leaving plenty of room to expand, unlike for example LA which has maxed out theoretical throughput in a road system (at a certain point you can't add more lanes).

I could go on, but these are all small steps we could take that aren't just environmentally friendly but would in the long run provide enough cost savings/profit to pay for themselves.

a reply to: Aazadan

I have no problem with any of that. But you would agree that shoveling billions of dollars to subsidize inefficient wind and solar companies that could never hope to compete in the free market at their current level of technology is a waste of money right? If we stopped wasting so much money subsidizing them, we could take some of the actions you suggested, as well as continuing to invest in improving wind and solar to become more efficient.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: face23785

Most all of the graphs that we see in the mainstream media neglect to show us the error bars, with a couple standard deviations put in they are a much different looking graph.

Seriously, I am not much of a conspiracy theorist, but i think that Global warming is one of the largest psychological operations every played out on the population, the stakes are high, they played for keeps.

This is why I said in a previous post that the only real option would be to analyze the actual data, but that also takes subject matter expertise. Good data analysis doesn't happen in a vacuum.

However, standard deviations and margins of error still should be placed within the context of probability, and whether the probability of the data being wrong or off is under a certain threshold.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Thats why you could pick one point out of the list and we could discuss it.
The C02 fertilization effect is downplayed.
You will see studies now that under identical growing conditions, increased C02 results in protein in the crops.
Well now, since I have a farming background, i can tell you that if you increase one factor you will want to compensate in another. Try the same experiements with increased fertilizer as well. It's as if these studies are designed to discredit any benefits that C02 may be giving us.
If you want scary, you have to read the 1974 report from the CIA on what happens if our climate cools a couple degrees.
And you know what? It's just regional, but Canada was 2.0 degrees below norm for the month of April...
Cia report

It's a little hard to read since it's a scanned photocopy, but it is very revealing.

I can believe that regarding agriculture. I took one course on it in grad school, but also in relation to global food security. We also had to look in later coursework, at the effect of climate change and other shocks on food security, nutrition, and global stability.

As far as climatological modeling goes, the argument runs that the changes in the weather, desertification, increased droughts, etc, would place sufficient shocks on global agriculture to create food insecurity and offset any benefits accrued from what you are describing. What say you on this point?

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

You are right that analyzing the raw data probably isn't for the layman. However, still spread the word about the 97% myth. The average person can take a look at studies such as Cook's like D8Tee pointed out and see that the conclusions Cook drew were bogus. It's obvious to anyone with an open mind, the numbers don't lie. The 97% consensus is a myth, and requires no expertise to see that and it's our responsibility to spread that knowledge. I tell anyone that will listen.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Then we agree that social costs are only relevant where social damage exceeds a minimal impact. Good.

Now, can you tell me what kind of non- minimal social impact is created by 400 ppmv carbon dioxide as opposed to 300 ppmv?

I am a former science teacher, and now a research/data scientist

Good. Then I will assume you are familiar with quantum bond energies and excitation states, and their effect on absorption spectra. I will also assume you are familiar with the effect spectral absorption has relative to blackbody radiation on radiative forcing.

Also, the non-linear response of total radiative forcing versus concentration.

TheRedneck

It's not just social costs, it's what is now called the "triple-bottom line," i.e. accounting for all externalities from social to economic/financial to environmental. They are all interrelated at the global or even national/regional level.

I don't know what is the dividing line at which point greenhouse gas accumulation, beyond just CO2, creates a break away cycle of increased warming (through tundra melting, glacial melting, deforestation,reduction of so-called carbon sinks, etc), such that this intersecting triple-bottom line becomes substantially affected. I'm not a climatologist, are you?

That doesn't mean, however, we shouldn't discuss it of course.

As to your final paragraph, it seems like you are trying to again be 'splainey, and use big words for the hell of it. You see, as a former science teacher, and as a data analyst for a public outreach unit for a governmental agency, I am used to doing the opposite, converting data and science into layman's terms.

Regarding your query, as you know science and data are such large fields that there are entire areas that people don't focus on.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

The global elite created the Global Warming BS. lol Why else do they got all their investments in the Carbon Exchanges and Paris Agreement?

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

As far as climatological modeling goes, the argument runs that the changes in the weather, desertification, increased droughts, etc, would place sufficient shocks on global agriculture to create food insecurity and offset any benefits accrued from what you are describing.

According the World Bank’s global crop yield data, US crop yields have increased almost 80% since 1980 with a considerable portion of that increase due to: CO2 fertilization, plants requiring less water due to leaf stoma shrinkage from higher CO2 levels, a slight increased global precipitation, slightly longer growing seasons due to the slight increase in global temperatures, increased arable land area in Northern latitudes due to slightly warming temperatures, etc…

World Bank Link

Where is the warming trend for the past 18 years? Where is the catastrophe? Why is CAGW still taken seriously? Why is the world still throwing $trillions down the toilet on this CAGW scam?

Man’s CO2 emissions have been a boon to the Earth’s ecology and economy and have helped save billions of humans from starvation over the years. In the process of burning fossil fuels, we’ve also created the energy necessary to drive the fastest economic expansion in human history and have managed to lift billions of people from abject poverty… Try doing that with wind turbines and solar panels…

In the process of burning all this fossil fuel, the US has actually managed to substantially DECREASE real air pollution by up to 90%:

EPA Link
If you asked the average Joe on the street what’s happened to air quality in the US since 1980, I bet 80% of the people surveyed would say air quality has worsened…

BTW, the climate models are failing, there has been no warming in the last 18 years unless you cherry pick an el nino year and thats natural variation.

SO MUCH WIN in so short a time, grinning ear to ear. NOW onto Nafta.Kafta,and the rest of these shill deals that have bled out America for over 20 years.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I would love to see across the board development. Make solar and wind more viable. Bring back hydrogen cells. Work on the thermal depolymerization. Thorium thorium thorium! Nuclear energy baby!

I'm not as excited about wind and solar, mainly because I don't believe they can be made viable on a large scale. There's just too many technical issues with solar. We've been trying to force it into viability with subsidies, but all that has done is to make money disappear. More progress is actually accomplished for less cost by funding university research programs.

Wind has proved to have limited viability, but it would be nice if we could have a civilized discussion about effects of scale. Every blade slows the winds by a tiny amount, so at what point is there a noticeable change in the climate from this effect?

Hydrogen is not energy production; it is energy storage.

I don't disagree with any of that, but I like the idea of solar tied to hydrogen on a local level. I'd like the ability to store solar energy from my panels for emergencies.

I would like to see wind and solar improved for planetary exploration. We'll need solar for the moon, and wind for Mars. We certainly won't be shipping oil or coal to either location.

Thorium sounds promising, but we should proceed with extreme caution. I love nuclear power, but I am also cautious about it. Moving too fast too soon leads to situations like Three Mile Island (hazardous emergency), Chernobyl (contained ecological destruction), or Fukushima (widespread ongoing ecological apocalypse). We must be careful, and being careful takes longer.

I personally like wave energy. Much of the population lives within 100 miles of the coast, so using wave energy (wasted ecological energy) could put a massive dent in our oil dependency. The technology is almost ready for commercial release, and relies in large part on proven hydroelectric technology.

Does your concern about 'effects of scale' with wind not apply to wave?

Also, wave energy does not excite me because it cannot translate to planetary exploration. Sorry, I'm thinking about colonizing the solar system to increase mankind's odds of survival

I also believe that, despite the hoaxes, zero-point energy could one day become viable. I'm not holding my breath, as a major breakthrough is required, but I do maintain hope.

Ridicule that last statement as you wish. I'm used to it.

TheRedneck

Nope, I've read about it. I'm also hopeful for cold fusion one day, but breakthroughs will need to be made. Breakthroughs will need a robust energy sector and open productivity.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I would love to see across the board development. Make solar and wind more viable. Bring back hydrogen cells. Work on the thermal depolymerization. Thorium thorium thorium! Nuclear energy baby!

I'm not as excited about wind and solar, mainly because I don't believe they can be made viable on a large scale. There's just too many technical issues with solar. We've been trying to force it into viability with subsidies, but all that has done is to make money disappear. More progress is actually accomplished for less cost by funding university research programs.

Wind has proved to have limited viability, but it would be nice if we could have a civilized discussion about effects of scale. Every blade slows the winds by a tiny amount, so at what point is there a noticeable change in the climate from this effect?

Hydrogen is not energy production; it is energy storage.

I don't disagree with any of that, but I like the idea of solar tied to hydrogen on a local level. I'd like the ability to store solar energy from my panels for emergencies.

I would like to see wind and solar improved for planetary exploration. We'll need solar for the moon, and wind for Mars. We certainly won't be shipping oil or coal to either location.

Thorium sounds promising, but we should proceed with extreme caution. I love nuclear power, but I am also cautious about it. Moving too fast too soon leads to situations like Three Mile Island (hazardous emergency), Chernobyl (contained ecological destruction), or Fukushima (widespread ongoing ecological apocalypse). We must be careful, and being careful takes longer.

I personally like wave energy. Much of the population lives within 100 miles of the coast, so using wave energy (wasted ecological energy) could put a massive dent in our oil dependency. The technology is almost ready for commercial release, and relies in large part on proven hydroelectric technology.

Does your concern about 'effects of scale' with wind not apply to wave?

Also, wave energy does not excite me because it cannot translate to planetary exploration. Sorry, I'm thinking about colonizing the solar system to increase mankind's odds of survival

I also believe that, despite the hoaxes, zero-point energy could one day become viable. I'm not holding my breath, as a major breakthrough is required, but I do maintain hope.

Ridicule that last statement as you wish. I'm used to it.

TheRedneck

Nope, I've read about it. I'm also hopeful for cold fusion one day, but breakthroughs will need to be made. Breakthroughs will need a robust energy sector and open productivity.

Some of our space probes already use solar. Wind isn't feasible on Mars. It's only about 1% of Earth's atmospheric pressure. No matter how efficient your wind turbines are there just will never be enough molecules pounding into it to generate usable amounts of power. Solar will work on Mars too, we've already proven that. We just need a means to clean the panels off occasionally because they get covered with dust.