Chat Rooms (0 Chatting)  |  Search  |   Login/Join
* For the benefit of the community, commercial posting is not allowed.
Boundary Waters Quetico Forum
   Listening Point - General Discussion
      OK, climate change is real, now what?     
 Forum Sponsor

Author

Text

ZaraSp00k
distinguished member(1305)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/06/2018 01:30PM
For this thread we will assume climate change is real, and mostly due to human activity.

You hear various politicians talk about the evils of “fossil” fuels, but what are their solutions?

We cannot simply abandon our cars we need for work, our air conditioners to cool our homes and places of work, our furnaces to heat them, our kitchen appliances to prepare our food. It will take us decades to wean us off of all that even if we want to.

One of the more progressive governments in the “fight” against climate change is British Columbia, so let’s look at the results of their programs to fight climate change.
BC figures on GHG emissions:
GreenHouseGas emissions in BC
They appear to be doing a good job of cutting GHG per person, but looking at the total emissions not so much. In fact it appears that GHG were reduced during the economic recession (no surprise there) and have been increasing during the recovery (again, not a surprise).

Read this:
commentary
It looks to me despite being ahead of the curve, BC is failing to have a significant impact. By their own measure, it looks like they are and will fail to meet their goals.
 
Thread Locked from Reponses
      Print Top Bottom Previous Next
A1t2o
distinguished member(653)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/06/2018 02:38PM
I think new technology is going to be the big answer in a very wide spread way. Scrubbing carbon from the air is one theory they are chasing, new battery technology, capturing methane from manure, electric/hybrid cars, and so on. Fossil fuels aren't going to just disappear, but maybe removing carbon from the air will counter emissions or even surpass them.

The point is that there is no one answer. Just like there is no one source of emissions, all sorts of different technologies will be invented and take root in society to counter or limit global warming.

The real progress will be made once we figure out how to make it profitable like we did with the ozone issue and capturing the gases. Then we might run the risk of pulling too much carbon out of the air and have global cooling trends.
 
12/06/2018 02:43PM
It won't happen over night and there's many prongs to the solution.Electric cars, renewable energy on a major scale,to name a few. We have to start moving in that direction rather moving backwards
 
dentondoc
distinguished member(1059)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/06/2018 06:08PM
Well hold on to your hats guys!

I live in a community of over 70,000 population in Texas (you know, TEXAS ... the "gas and oil" state.)

Earlier this year, all of the electricity supplied to the community is now 100% renewable ... sourced from wind and solar sources. And how did such a liberal agenda get implemented in such a hard-core Red State! By the REPUBLICAN public officials here!!! They looked at the economics of the swap from conventional fuel sources and decided the long term cost of going to renewable energy was a no-brainer! Yeah, it took several years to make the swap, but now we are "all in."

City officials are now looking into a "lease your roof top" proposal, where citizens can rent roof top space for placement of solar panels to add additional supply to the local grid. (In an already completed program, they provided a "cash-back" incentive for those wishing to add solar panels to their homes on their own ... and of course, sell excess capacity back to the city.)

And since its is Texas (where water supplies are not abundant and water rationing is sometimes in place), they have a program where they will reimburse a home owner if they have their lawn watering system inspected and tuned by a local professional.

I guess you might say that some of the ole down home folks in Texas ain't such hicks after all!

dd
 
Canoearoo
distinguished member(2293)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/06/2018 06:58PM
I say if it is at all possible every company should allow work from home by law as an option.
 
missmolly
distinguished member(9050)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/06/2018 08:41PM
Canoearoo: "I say if it is at all possible every company should allow work from home by law as an option."

Brilliant!
 
Zwater
distinguished member (232)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/06/2018 10:28PM
missmolly: "Canoearoo: "I say if it is at all possible every company should allow work from home by law as an option."


Brilliant! "


Tell that to the truckers, factory workers, machinists, Cub food cashiers, Walmart greeters..... really!
 
missmolly
distinguished member(9050)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/06/2018 11:10PM
dentondoc: "Well hold on to your hats guys!


I live in a community of over 70,000 population in Texas (you know, TEXAS ... the "gas and oil" state.)


Earlier this year, all of the electricity supplied to the community is now 100% renewable ... sourced from wind and solar sources. And how did such a liberal agenda get implemented in such a hard-core Red State! By the REPUBLICAN public officials here!!! They looked at the economics of the swap from conventional fuel sources and decided the long term cost of going to renewable energy was a no-brainer! Yeah, it took several years to make the swap, but now we are "all in."


City officials are now looking into a "lease your roof top" proposal, where citizens can rent roof top space for placement of solar panels to add additional supply to the local grid. (In an already completed program, they provided a "cash-back" incentive for those wishing to add solar panels to their homes on their own ... and of course, sell excess capacity back to the city.)


And since its is Texas (where water supplies are not abundant and water rationing is sometimes in place), they have a program where they will reimburse a home owner if they have their lawn watering system inspected and tuned by a local professional.


I guess you might say that some of the ole down home folks in Texas ain't such hicks after all!


dd"


I've read about your town, doc. You're justifiably proud.
 
Canoearoo
distinguished member(2293)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/06/2018 11:48PM
Zwater: "missmolly: "Canoearoo: "I say if it is at all possible every company should allow work from home by law as an option."



Brilliant! "



Tell that to the truckers, factory workers, machinists, Cub food cashiers, Walmart greeters..... really!"

They would fall under not possible. I'm thinking of all the cubical workers. They should have an option to work from home. So many company's want to fill a desk space. Waisting gas, heating of a building, and so on. I met a family off of Craigslist living in the country near pillager. She telecommuted to Minneapolis and he worked for a company in St Paul. I asked them why those choose there to live. They said they can live anywhere in the state as long as they had internet so they went by school district.
 
andym
distinguished member(4455)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/07/2018 05:35AM
It’s a question of reducing driving. A lot of employers do allow telecommuting for reasons including global climate change. Mine does it for that reason plus employee retention because it allows people to live further from work where it may be cheaper. Unfortunately, that one can cancel out the first one with fewer but longer drives.
 
andym
distinguished member(4455)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/07/2018 05:38AM
As another solution: better mass transit. Anything that gets people out of their cars. Barring that, encourage carpooling. My wife and I carpool with a Prius and save our small SUV for short trips or when it is really needed. We also work at home one day a week. Our office is moving a bit further from our house and we will likely switch to two days a week at home.

One of my colleagues who is very committed commutes largely by biking or train. I say committed because she chose her house to allow for that. We moved to a town that makes that tough a long time ago but haven’t chosen to leave for a more efficient commute.
 
mschi772
distinguished member (209)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/07/2018 08:04AM
As others have said, there is not one solution, and true success requires all people of the world to make changes, not just states/provinces or even just select nations--everyone, and not just on large scales, but on small personal scales. It's going to take hundreds of really big decisions and millions of little ones, and everyone has to be involved.

Yes, we need large-scale policies to be made/changed, but an enormous amount of good comes from every individual taking their small share of personal responsibility as well. Take time in your own life to consider if there is a better way for you to do something. Do you really need that full-size truck to be your daily driver when you rarely haul anything or anyone? Could your next lawn mower be electric instead of gas? Do you really need everything you order online to be rushed inefficiently to you with 2-day shipping? There are tons of ways people can make small changes in their lives that, along with others making those same changes, add up to very large effects. No, I'm not saying that you have to make every conceivable change all at once, but be mindful and do make changes as much and as often as it occurs to you that you can.

Ideally we should also be making changes in our society with regards to protecting carbon sinks in addition to our focus on our carbon emission sources. Nothing we can do as humans can replicate what a rainforest can do for the planet for example, and the amount of rainforest we've lost since I was a kid is terrifying and needs to stop. All of the factors surrounding the loss of Amazon forest makes that a huge problem all on its own, but it should not be left to fester. It's inherently important, and it's important in terms of climate change as well. Smaller-scale habitat protection is important as well. Our own forests, wetlands, and prairies all play their parts, and if started seeing their global importance and realized that sometimes having yet another Walmart or Amazon distribution center in a particular area might not be a smart trade, those decisions would add-up and do some real good.
 
flopnfolds
distinguished member (487)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/07/2018 08:13AM
On a personal level, the shift to electric cars alongside with the move to renewable energy will be a significant factor to reduce c02 emissions. We have thought about buying a Nissan Leaf, but haven't pulled the trigger, the timing just hasn't worked out yet. And then I compare the Tesla with the Leaf and I wish Tesla's weren't so expensive ;) We are a two car family, so having a vehicle with a limited range really isn't as issue for us.

For work, I wish the airlines such as Delta, who I fly for work, offered a carbon offset button as a way to offset the emissions of flying. There are thing such as the Terra Pass, but I haven't really investigated them. I would like the airlines to make it easy, "Click Here to Add a $5 Fee" to offset your emissions.

I also bike to work around half the year. The other half of the year, for me my commute is just too far for me to bike commute in the winter.

Biking works for me because I have the gear! and our office has provided bike parking in the garage, as well as showers and locker rooms. My bike commute takes longer, but not significantly longer depending upon traffic. I would say my car commute takes 30-40 minutes and the bike commute takes 45 minutes.

 
ZaraSp00k
distinguished member(1305)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/07/2018 08:14AM
dentondoc: "Well hold on to your hats guys!


I live in a community of over 70,000 population in Texas (you know, TEXAS ... the "gas and oil" state.)


Earlier this year, all of the electricity supplied to the community is now 100% renewable ... sourced from wind and solar sources. And how did such a liberal agenda get implemented in such a hard-core Red State! By the REPUBLICAN public officials here!!! They looked at the economics of the swap from conventional fuel sources and decided the long term cost of going to renewable energy was a no-brainer! Yeah, it took several years to make the swap, but now we are "all in."


City officials are now looking into a "lease your roof top" proposal, where citizens can rent roof top space for placement of solar panels to add additional supply to the local grid. (In an already completed program, they provided a "cash-back" incentive for those wishing to add solar panels to their homes on their own ... and of course, sell excess capacity back to the city.)


And since its is Texas (where water supplies are not abundant and water rationing is sometimes in place), they have a program where they will reimburse a home owner if they have their lawn watering system inspected and tuned by a local professional.


I guess you might say that some of the ole down home folks in Texas ain't such hicks after all!


dd"


that is great to hear that a government unit has actually done something that makes a significant difference rather than a bunch of politicians just spewing more hot air about "climate change" "fossil fuels" blah blah blah to get themselves re-elected

for the people that read my links, note that British Columbia is attempting to solve the problem by water power, which many would argue is not environment friendly. Note also that the results of their efforts is only a couple of % reduction in carbon emissions. IOW, probably the most progressive large government unit on climate change has had almost ZERO effect on solving the problem.
 
mschi772
distinguished member (209)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/07/2018 08:34AM
ZaraSp00k: "for the people that read my links, note that British Columbia is attempting to solve the problem by water power, which many would argue is not environment friendly. Note also that the results of their efforts is only a couple of % reduction in carbon emissions. IOW, probably the most progressive large government unit on climate change has had almost ZERO effect on solving the problem."

I read your links. Their changes have had effects, and to say otherwise is unfair. GHG per capita and per GDP have decreased significantly. Yes, the total GHG emissions have not decreased much, but that's not because their progressive changes have failed. It's because population and economic growth have canceled-out the per unit reductions.
 
missmolly
distinguished member(9050)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/07/2018 08:49AM
flopnfolds: "On a personal level, the shift to electric cars alongside with the move to renewable energy will be a significant factor to reduce c02 emissions. We have thought about buying a Nissan Leaf, but haven't pulled the trigger, the timing just hasn't worked out yet. And then I compare the Tesla with the Leaf and I wish Tesla's weren't so expensive ;) We are a two car family, so having a vehicle with a limited range really isn't as issue for us.


For work, I wish the airlines such as Delta, who I fly for work, offered a carbon offset button as a way to offset the emissions of flying. There are thing such as the Terra Pass, but I haven't really investigated them. I would like the airlines to make it easy, "Click Here to Add a $5 Fee" to offset your emissions.


I also bike to work around half the year. The other half of the year, for me my commute is just too far for me to bike commute in the winter.


Biking works for me because I have the gear! and our office has provided bike parking in the garage, as well as showers and locker rooms. My bike commute takes longer, but not significantly longer depending upon traffic. I would say my car commute takes 30-40 minutes and the bike commute takes 45 minutes.


"


I used to live in western Wisconsin and would often drive to Green Bay to work, using Highway 29. There were be January mornings when the wind was howling across the prairie and I'd pass Amish men and women pedaling their bikes. I'd laugh thinking about common misconceptions, because for many people, the Amish don't come to mind when picturing the toughest Americans.
 
missmolly
distinguished member(9050)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/07/2018 08:52AM
mschi772: "ZaraSp00k: "for the people that read my links, note that British Columbia is attempting to solve the problem by water power, which many would argue is not environment friendly. Note also that the results of their efforts is only a couple of % reduction in carbon emissions. IOW, probably the most progressive large government unit on climate change has had almost ZERO effect on solving the problem."


I read your links. Their changes have had effects, and to say otherwise is unfair. GHG per capita and per GDP have decreased significantly. Yes, the total GHG emissions have not decreased much, but that's not because their progressive changes have failed. It's because population and economic growth have canceled-out the per unit reductions."


This reminds me of my first thought, which is that fewer people abate climate change.
 
arctic
distinguished member(5231)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/07/2018 10:59AM
ZaraSp00k: " IOW, probably the most progressive large government unit on climate change has had almost ZERO effect on solving the problem."

And that's the reason why many of us feel the planet and humanity are headed for disaster. The piecemeal way that climate change is being tackled cannot keep up with unchecked population growth and the unforgiving Laws of Physics.

Will this end Mankind? Of course not. But there will be wars driven by scarcity and mass migration--especially when declining agricultural production cannot keep up with feeding the teaming masses.
 
Canoearoo
distinguished member(2293)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/07/2018 11:17AM
"If those with compatible jobs and a desire to work from home did so just half the time (roughly the national average for those who do so regularly) the national savings would total over $700 Billion a year including:
A typical business would save $11,000 per person per year
The telecommuters would save between $2,000 and $7,000 a year
The greenhouse gas reduction would be the equivalent of taking the entire New York State workforce permanently off the road.
The Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the entire five-year cost of implementing telework throughout government ($30 million) is less than a third of the cost of lost productivity from a single day shut down of federal offices in Washington DC due to snow ($100 million)."
 
12/07/2018 11:27AM
Canoearoo: ""If those with compatible jobs and a desire to work from home did so just half the time (roughly the national average for those who do so regularly) the national savings would total over $700 Billion a year including:
A typical business would save $11,000 per person per year
The telecommuters would save between $2,000 and $7,000 a year
The greenhouse gas reduction would be the equivalent of taking the entire New York State workforce permanently off the road.
The Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the entire five-year cost of implementing telework throughout government ($30 million) is less than a third of the cost of lost productivity from a single day shut down of federal offices in Washington DC due to snow ($100 million).""




I agree here. And also with op... I believe the thought is like mine somewhat. Ok, so if there is climate change which I think we al agree exists to one degree or another... what is happening to combat it vs just complain or do things that make people rich but zero or negative results. DD, I hope Austin can pull this off... if anywhere you folks could. But if your looking at storing the amount of energy required to run such a demand I think someone already hit on the subject of battery technology would need to be greatly advanced. You folks that want us to be impressed with your electric cars and holler about coal and heaven forbid nuclear energy... um, do you just plug in at home to a solar panel? So far renewable has been tried and failed enough to like I say make some rich, and make more sceptic. We know driving 55 saves energy but I’ve been on roads in Austin that are 85. I know that would ruffle a lot of feathers. We have been asked to unplug our milliamperes devices to save energy when buildings, bridges... you name it are lit up like Christmas trees everywhere. Thank goodness for led technology. How many of us tree huggers buy a canoe 2000 miles away when someone else is buying the same model there coming from where maybe you are. Gas... we ship crude from here to who knows where and it passes a ship in the ocean bringing crude to us from possibly where that one is coming from. Trucks! Millions of semis bring goods thousands of miles one direction with identical goods coming back the same way. Yeah, good... jobs, profit... someone is making money. I think all the time about people protesting the safest, cheapest ways to move product and complain about big oil or who or whatever. But no solution is really brought forward. Bio fuels we have to burn bring our mileage down, cause problems with injectors and what all costing in repairs and resources for replacement. And are environmentally terrible to produce. But shut up cause price of corn is higher for farmers and money is being made. One thing I’ve heard is there are people trying. But the tryers vs the complainers are getting out numbered greatly. Coal plants are not as bad as we’re led to believe if you look at everything. They have crazy standards and have done a terrific job cleaning up their act. Most of what you see is vapor coming from their stacks with so much less pollutants than in the past. So far only nuclear energy has the cleanest energy when all things considered. Our attempts to conserve have been pretty minimal. If your really serious I believe you have to do more than buy a Prius and ride a bus. But a good start... I hope Austin is successful in their endeavors... but so far people are just making big money on little results. Over and over I hear if we don’t do something we’ll all be dead in ten years so we should start this twenty year plan... haha. The comments here were not necessarily my views or anyone else’s, just an opportunity to stir the pot. Haha!
 
missmolly
distinguished member(9050)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/07/2018 11:55AM
Canoearoo: ""If those with compatible jobs and a desire to work from home did so just half the time (roughly the national average for those who do so regularly) the national savings would total over $700 Billion a year including:
A typical business would save $11,000 per person per year
The telecommuters would save between $2,000 and $7,000 a year
The greenhouse gas reduction would be the equivalent of taking the entire New York State workforce permanently off the road.
The Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the entire five-year cost of implementing telework throughout government ($30 million) is less than a third of the cost of lost productivity from a single day shut down of federal offices in Washington DC due to snow ($100 million).""


This is what's known as laser sighting versus shooting from the hip.
 
flopnfolds
distinguished member (487)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/07/2018 12:10PM
I would also add that we try to be aware of the distance our food is traveling to eat. Being in MN we certainly aren't growing all of our own food, our diet would consist of corn, wheat, and canola oil! But we do try to eat in season foods sourced from the US, or Mexico. For example, we don't typically buy New Zealand apples, the carbon footprint of growing in NZ and sending to the US has to be huge. This isn't a hard and fast rule, we do buy fruits from the southern hemisphere, but it tends to be the exception, rather than the norm.

I do think its ironic that 50 years ago, we wouldn't have had the option of buying fruit from Chile or NZ even if we wanted it, and here we are, even with the option of buying the fruit, we prefer not to .
 
missmolly
distinguished member(9050)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/07/2018 12:32PM
flopnfolds: "I would also add that we try to be aware of the distance our food is traveling to eat. Being in MN we certainly aren't growing all of our own food, our diet would consist of corn, wheat, and canola oil! But we do try to eat in season foods sourced from the US, or Mexico. For example, we don't typically buy New Zealand apples, the carbon footprint of growing in NZ and sending to the US has to be huge. This isn't a hard and fast rule, we do buy fruits from the southern hemisphere, but it tends to be the exception, rather than the norm.


I do think its ironic that 50 years ago, we wouldn't have had the option of buying fruit from Chile or NZ even if we wanted it, and here we are, even with the option of buying the fruit, we prefer not to ."


Growing your own and canning it makes a lot of sense, but it's great to have a supermarket for backup. Deer leaped over my raspberry patch fence and devastated it. Not satisfied, they bit and broke branches of cherry and apple trees. So, I built a raised raspberry bed from cedar and we'll see if that works. If it does, I'll be picking raspberries over my head.
 
brp
senior member (98)senior membersenior member
 
12/07/2018 12:47PM
I think there will be nuclear fusion powered carbon scrubbers sucking carbon from the air and depositing into basalt formations to create limestone.

Electricity is so efficient and can be generated in a variety of ways and transported easily.

With current tech and at competitive prices.....

-Nearly all transport can be done with electricity.
-With advances in air-source heat pumps, nearly all heating and cooling can be done with electricity.
-All electricity generation can be carbon free, especially of nuclear is included.

If we move away from coal and oil we will also see big drops in atmospheric methane, which is a way more climate potent gas than carbon.

Here is my suggestion of the day..Don't eat beef. Cattle farts methane at a climate equivalent of about 250 gallons of gasoline per year. It will also save you money and be better for your health.

https://timeforchange.org/are-cows-cause-of-global-warming-meat-methane-CO2

 
nofish
distinguished member(2814)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/07/2018 12:57PM
missmolly: "

Growing your own and canning it makes a lot of sense, but it's great to have a supermarket for backup. Deer leaped over my raspberry patch fence and devastated it. Not satisfied, they bit and broke branches of cherry and apple trees. So, I built a raised raspberry bed from cedar and we'll see if that works. If it does, I'll be picking raspberries over my head. "


Let me know when and where and I can swing over and turn those pesky crop destroying deer into a couple freezers full of organic locally grown free range red meat.
 
hobbydog
distinguished member(2078)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/07/2018 01:23PM
The biggest impediment to getting there is the politicalization of climate change. I truly believe that if the leadership was there to get the whole country behind the effort that the technological innovation to get there would happen. The US has always led the world in technology revolution. This time we are letting China and Europe take the lead. This breakthrough in solar panel technology just came from The Netherlands.

Tin-Based Hybrid Perovskite Improves Solar Cell Efficiency
 
flopnfolds
distinguished member (487)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/07/2018 01:29PM
nofish: "missmolly: "


Growing your own and canning it makes a lot of sense, but it's great to have a supermarket for backup. Deer leaped over my raspberry patch fence and devastated it. Not satisfied, they bit and broke branches of cherry and apple trees. So, I built a raised raspberry bed from cedar and we'll see if that works. If it does, I'll be picking raspberries over my head. "



Let me know when and where and I can swing over and turn those pesky crop destroying deer into a couple freezers full of organic locally grown free range red meat. "


LOL. +1

Edited to add that my wife only eats meat that I harvest so deer season is especially important if I want to eat meat! I call her a Killatarian.
 
ZaraSp00k
distinguished member(1305)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/07/2018 02:14PM
mschi772: "I read your links. Their changes have had effects, and to say otherwise is unfair. GHG per capita and per GDP have decreased significantly. Yes, the total GHG emissions have not decreased much, but that's not because their progressive changes have failed. It's because population and economic growth have canceled-out the per unit reductions."
Exactly, and that is why the policy isn't working, it will only succeed if the total amount of GHG decreases, otherwise global warming will not only increase, it will accelerate and I fear that is the problem, people cannot think logically and are easily fooled, the problem is not global warming, which is only a symptom, the problem is population growth

note that it is easy for politicians to blame something like global warming, it doesn't vote, population growth => people vote
 
missmolly
distinguished member(9050)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/07/2018 02:46PM
nofish: "missmolly: "


Growing your own and canning it makes a lot of sense, but it's great to have a supermarket for backup. Deer leaped over my raspberry patch fence and devastated it. Not satisfied, they bit and broke branches of cherry and apple trees. So, I built a raised raspberry bed from cedar and we'll see if that works. If it does, I'll be picking raspberries over my head. "



Let me know when and where and I can swing over and turn those pesky crop destroying deer into a couple freezers full of organic locally grown free range red meat. "


You're welcome anytime, but there might be a slight aftertaste of black raspberries in your venison.
 
KarlBAndersen1
distinguished member(930)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/07/2018 03:39PM
OK – say I have a bad attitude. You are probably right.
I don’t think we have a chance.
Windmills are cool. So are electric cars.
What are you going to make them from? Yep – steel made from IRON. And aluminum. And where are we going to get it? We mine it. We dig it out of the ground – with BIG!! Machines. And then we transport it to foundries where it’s cooked down in really huge ovens that never – EVER!! - shut down. And they’re fired by coal, because it’s plentiful and HOT!
To make steel you have to first ship the raw iron to foundries, and then ship the refined iron to mills where it’s again cooked into a liquid state with added minerals like manganese, zinc, vanadium. Etc. to make different grades of steel.
Oh – and all those minerals need to be mined and shipped, and refined, etc. as well.
And all this stuff is shipped by ship, train, truck, etc. which also have to be made, and fueled by BIG!! Mills and factories that NEVER shut down.
And the roads they’re transported on need to be built – yes, out of petroleum and stone – and maintained. With BIG!! machines that need to be built. Out of steel, etc.
And this is all fueled and lubricated by petroleum products that are pumped out of the ground by BIG! pump jacks that are made out of – what? Steel. That had to be mined and processed and shipped, etc.
And when we do get to the point of making an ELECTRIC car in a HUGE factory built of steel, the motor is powered by an armature that is made of COPPER!!! windings. A mineral. That also has to be mined by BIG!! machines and processed in coal fired plants and shipped on roads, etc.
Oh – and those batteries? Do I need to go there?
Did you ever see those wind mill blades being transported down the road by those HUGE!! Trucks burning diesel? Those trucks that have to be built out of steel? (Look above) And it’s not just one truck – or person. To haul one blade it’s a procession of trucks and people – warning trucks, escorts, cops, etc. All burning fuel. Needing food and housing, etc. And wearing down the roads made from petroleum, etc.
On and on and on.
I have a bad attitude that comes up whenever we talk about reversing any damage we have done.
It ain’t gonna happen.
And even if ANY progress is made, it will happen in countries that CAN make some very miniscule changes. But those changes won’t be enough.
Our current 7 billion people will soon be 9 billion. And they will need everything we need now.
The only hope for a brighter future is to pull the plug on Humanity. Just like in some SyFy movie.
Let starvation and disease and plague take the majority of humans.
Stop the incessant damage we’re doing and let the Earth heal.
We have already filled this boat full of holes, and were filling the boat with more and more people faster than we’re fixing the holes.
It’s gonna sink – and it ain’t gonna be pretty.
Too many people are living in denial and think life is a Disney movie. (Remember those?)
 
mjmkjun
distinguished member(2218)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/07/2018 04:00PM
Admittedly, I am a bit of a pessimist but one must hope. So I hope. I hope the next generations will enjoy lives within those resolutions.
I believe such wonderful innovations aforementioned won't happen in time to prevent calamities of some sort regarding American's standard of living. Why? Because it will require Americans to change or alter current lifestyles drastically. Soon. Like, yesterday. Not going to happen.
#1. We, as a society, are addicted to technology-dependent, fossil fuel supported lifestyles that have been our comfort-zone for half a century--and beyond. We, U.S. citizens, are spoiled on the whole.
We don't have a right to tell other countries what to do with their forest (rain forest). Look what we've done with our own grand forests that used to stretch in all directions of North America, Gone. Gone in the name of progress and a struggle towards 'better living'.
Despite what we'd like to think or how we chose to poise ourselves in actuality, we are not the bully-police of all nations. Just a single nation among many.
See how we took this space from the Native Americans who did know how to respect the renewable resources of the land. We have billions of citizens with no sense of connection to the earth. We are in trouble because we've lost sight of respect for the earth. I don't mean this poetically but literally.
~my 2 cents~
 
TomT
distinguished member(5299)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/07/2018 04:04PM
KarlBAndersen1: "
Let starvation and disease and plague take the majority of humans.
Stop the incessant damage we’re doing and let the Earth heal.
We have already filled this boat full of holes, and were filling the boat with more and more people faster than we’re fixing the holes.
"


Well, there's some super volcanoes around the world, one being under Yellowstone, that could take out a good chunk of us if they blew. A large meteor could also curb the population pretty good. It's been theorized that humans had to start over 4 times in our history due to cataclysmic events.

It is definitely a "too many people" on the planet issue. Maybe it's time for drastic measures like limiting the number of kids we have. Remember the Duggers - the reality show family with 19 kids and counting? How many tax breaks did they get? Maybe reverse it with a kid tax is what I'm thinking.

 
Grizzlyman
distinguished member(619)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/07/2018 04:13PM
We need PRAGMATISM- something that is completely missing from the current global debate on the subject.

Take a flight From Minneapolis to orlando? The carbon footprint of just your portion of that trip was the same as me driving my Jeep for 4 months.

Did you know a cargo ship burns a gallon of diesel every 50 ft or so?

None of this changes until industry changes. Consumption is not going to change. And even if fuel consumption does... define consumption. Consumption of overseas goods isn’t going anywhere. Goods need to be transported. Consumption of crops will increase.

Trucks produce about 30% of co2. Planes about 10%. Ships about 2%. Food industry about 2%.

Technology that has REAL environmental impact is the only way this gets any better. Solar will never be good enough. Wind will never be good enough. Electric vehicles powered by fossil fuel plants isn’t a solution- they’re nice band-aids, but it doesn’t do anything to solve the long term problem- it’s rearranging furniture on a sinking ship.

Nuclear Fusion is about the only solution. Funnel all environmental $$$ into fusion research. Go HARD at it. ... will never happen though, too much $$$ and no payoff until a solution is found - which means very few are actually TRYING to find a solution...



 
KarlBAndersen1
distinguished member(930)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/07/2018 05:03PM
TomT: "It is definitely a "too many people" on the planet issue. "

When I was in grade school in the 60s and the US population was approaching 200 million, there was constant conversation about OVER POPULATION!!!
I have not heard that phrase in 40 years.
As long as the top tier of this world makes money on the "people" things will remain the same.
 
overthehill
distinguished member(4413)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/07/2018 05:36PM
The last 5 posts don't paint a pretty picture; but seem real. All we can do is slow it down a wee bit.
 
flopnfolds
distinguished member (487)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/07/2018 05:57PM
overthehill: " The last 5 posts don't paint a pretty picture; but seem real. All we can do is slow it down a wee bit."

If one issue is over population, there is little to nothing to be done about it. However, we can decouple economic growth from energy consumption. Throughout industrialization economic growth has been linked to an increase in energy consumption. Unfortunately for our planet and health, the increase in energy consumption has come from fossil fuels.

The pragmatic approach is to take renewable energy, especially solar since all other renewable sources are dependent upon it, ensuring that theoretically, wind can never be as efficient as solar, take the renewable energy and drastically expand its use. Its going to take money and a willing market. I think the market is willing, but the sunk costs in the existing system create huge problems. Texas is a leader in wind, led by Republicans who saw a business opportunity for their state. This needs to be expanded.

Nuclear fusion may always be a pipe dream, 60 years ago people knew about fusion, but they certainly could not have imagined the world we live in with the internet, super computers, etc. We need to invest in the future, but we have the tools to make the future better.
 
Guest Paddler
 
12/07/2018 06:21PM
flopnfolds:
For work, I wish the airlines such as Delta, who I fly for work, offered a carbon offset button as a way to offset the emissions of flying. There are thing such as the Terra Pass, but I haven't really investigated them. I would like the airlines to make it easy, "Click Here to Add a $5 Fee" to offset your emissions.
"


I agree that Delta could make it much easier but here's a link that may interest you.

https://www.delta.com/content/www/en_US/about-delta/corporate-responsibility/carbon-emissions-calculator.html
 
missmolly
distinguished member(9050)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/07/2018 07:23PM
Karl, you sound a little like Thanos. Instead of some magical infinity Stones, perhaps we need Spanish Flu to stir again.
 
mapsguy1955
distinguished member(735)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/07/2018 08:47PM
If you throw just a little more money at battery storage you will speed that up. There is a lot of good technology that is much closer than you would think. Just self driving cars help a lot. If all of the fossil fuel use was consumed in factories and in those giant steel mills until we have fusion, we solve the problem, but what can you and I do today?

We can stop buying vehicles that get less than 30 mpg. We can stop supporting industries that are wiping out our carbon sinks, especially the biodiverse ones (Palm Oil / Avocados/Imported meat. We can stop buying products that use a lot of plastics. We can slow down making babies. We can replace all our lighting with LED's. We can buy products that have a ten year lifespan instead of single use. We can put pressure on agriculture that uses methods that are not environmentally friendly. There is a lot we can do.

What has happened in the last 15 years with lighting should be a huge thing with significantly less energy used, but no. What actually happened was there are now a lot more lights which creates its own issues.

Good topic!
 
Pinetree
distinguished member(13000)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished membermaster membermaster member
 
12/07/2018 10:03PM
There getting cars like 300 miles they can travel on electric. Would be nice to go home and recharge with solar panels on batteries ready to go. You would think you would have some solar panels on the vechile itself. Maybe charging while sitting at work?
The automobile is just over 100 years old. Technology of the future should be something esle.
 
shock
distinguished member(3553)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/07/2018 10:19PM
Climate change has always been real , even before man , and as far as electric cars go , most should have bumper stickers that say I run on coal !
 
Zwater
distinguished member (232)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/07/2018 11:53PM
I have a degree in Environmental studies. I'm not going to comment, but a lot of these comments and ideas are ridiculous.
 
Banksiana
distinguished member(1679)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/08/2018 01:08AM
Pinetree: "There getting cars like 300 miles they can travel on electric. Would be nice to go home and recharge with solar panels on batteries ready to go. You would think you would have some solar panels on the vechile itself. Maybe charging while sitting at work?
The automobile is just over 100 years old. Technology of the future should be something esle."


Solar panels simply aren't efficient enough to be cost effective on the roof of a car. A car's roof has about 3-5 square meters of area. In the best of conditions a panel will produce about 200 watts/meter. An hour at noon will move the most efficient electric car (Tesla model 3) about 2-4 miles. If you're in reasonable shape you could do better walking.
 
andym
distinguished member(4455)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/08/2018 01:15AM
One of my friends charges two cars off solar on his roof. He has a large sprawling house designed and placed for solar power. But you can’t do it from panels on the car. Instead you collect at home, store in batteries, and then recharge at night from the batteries.

And yes, electric cars that are charged from the power grid aren’t zero emission but power plants are far more efficient than car engines.

There are many things we can do to reduce our carbon footprint. Besides energy efficiency, I agree that paying attention to food sources and diet can help. We’re vegetarians that try to eat local. But as much as we can do it is hard to divorce ourselves from the structure of our society. And it is an energy intensive society.

The point about nuclear is a good one. It is a way to reduce emissions of important gases. But we have trouble operating safely and dispersing nuclear widely raises proliferation issues.

 
Pinetree
distinguished member(13000)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished membermaster membermaster member
 
12/08/2018 07:07AM
Banksiana: "Pinetree: "There getting cars like 300 miles they can travel on electric. Would be nice to go home and recharge with solar panels on batteries ready to go. You would think you would have some solar panels on the vechile itself. Maybe charging while sitting at work?
The automobile is just over 100 years old. Technology of the future should be something esle."



Solar panels simply aren't efficient enough to be cost effective on the roof of a car. A car's roof has about 3-5 square meters of area. In the best of conditions a panel will produce about 200 watts/meter. An hour at noon will move the most efficient electric car (Tesla model 3) about 2-4 miles. If you're in reasonable shape you could do better walking."


I agree,just thought it would be nice. If your right on 2-4 miles a 8 hour shift and a 30 mile commute it would stay charged.The weight added might be to much.

Electric cars are so much more efficient than gas powered. So many less moving parts. Like all things electric cars for the next decade will need many improvements,but they will improve.
Still for many, gas engines will still be here. Gas engines majority of the energy is used or burned off as heat.
Improvement in solar panels is immense every few years.
 
missmolly
distinguished member(9050)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/08/2018 07:31AM
Zwater: "I have a degree in Environmental studies. I'm not going to comment, but a lot of these comments and ideas are ridiculous. "

Okey-dokey.
 
missmolly
distinguished member(9050)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/08/2018 07:42AM
andym: "One of my friends charges two cars off solar on his roof. He has a large sprawling house designed and placed for solar power. But you can’t do it from panels on the car. Instead you collect at home, store in batteries, and then recharge at night from the batteries.


And yes, electric cars that are charged from the power grid aren’t zero emission but power plants are far more efficient than car engines.


There are many things we can do to reduce our carbon footprint. Besides energy efficiency, I agree that paying attention to food sources and diet can help. We’re vegetarians that try to eat local. But as much as we can do it is hard to divorce ourselves from the structure of our society. And it is an energy intensive society.


The point about nuclear is a good one. It is a way to reduce emissions of important gases. But we have trouble operating safely and dispersing nuclear widely raises proliferation issues.


"


Six to twenty pounds of corn produce a pound of beef. It takes water, fertilizer, and gas to grow that corn, so vegetarianism is much more efficient.

On a micro-level, I propagate moss. When it comes to removing carbon from the air, no land plant is its equal or even close. A 10' by 20' patch of moss does the work of 250 trees. Because moss weathers drought and requires no fertilizer, it's extremely efficient. I have a patch of woods that slopes to the north and it naturally grows moss. I remove squares of it, moving it to places where it's less inclined to grow, but still grows. In a year or thereabouts, the source site regrows the taken moss. My main cultivated patch is about 40' by 20' or a thousand trees, but I expand it every summer. Rubbermaid tub load by tub load.

I also fell some of the local trees that I have in abundance, like various spruces, and have planted trees that thrive just south of where I live or that are less locally abundant, like shagbark hickory, hybrid chestnuts, elms, black cherry, sassafras, Kentucky coffeetree, beech, red pine, cherry birch, black tupelo, sourwood, sugar maple, tulip poplar, serviceberry, etc. I had my local forester visit and walk the woods and he said that my plan is solid, plus it's good for the critters, which are increasing in species and numbers and will do so for decades, as the chestnuts, cherries, serviceberries, and hickories produce more and more food for them.

A perk of growing moss is that it's pretty:

 
Pinetree
distinguished member(13000)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished membermaster membermaster member
 
12/08/2018 07:47AM
Lets just keep this nice thread light hearted and entertaining as intended.
 
TomT
distinguished member(5299)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/08/2018 08:44AM
missmolly: "
A perk of growing moss is that it's pretty:

"


I would love to replace all my suburban grass with moss. I would never have to cut it and I'd get to yell "Stay off the lawn!!" at the kids.



 
missmolly
distinguished member(9050)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/08/2018 09:13AM
TomT: "missmolly: "
A perk of growing moss is that it's pretty:


"



I would love to replace all my suburban grass with moss. I would never have to cut it and I'd get to yell "Stay off the lawn!!" at the kids.



"


"Get off my lawn, you kids!" would be justified, since moss won't take trampling.

There are people growing moss instead of grass. You'd need some shade to do it and you'd look forward to rainy days since it becomes even more beautiful with rain.

A mossy lawn.
 
KarlBAndersen1
distinguished member(930)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/08/2018 09:24AM
missmolly: "Karl, you sound a little like Thanos. Instead of some magical infinity Stones, perhaps we need Spanish Flu to stir again. "

Or an Olive Garden famine!
 
Banksiana
distinguished member(1679)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/08/2018 10:24AM
Pinetree:

I'm not opposed to electric vehicles in anyway. I thought your question of why ev's don't have solar panels interesting and took a dive into it. A better option is to use the home solar array and your electric car functions as a storage unit.

Of course living in the far north the cold presents a bit of a problem for a battery powered vehicle. Cold limits a battery's power and the need for interior heat places even greater demands on that diminished store of energy.
 
flopnfolds
distinguished member (487)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/08/2018 10:36AM
Banksiana: "Pinetree:


I'm not opposed to electric vehicles in anyway. I thought your question of why ev's don't have solar panels interesting and took a dive into it. A better option is to use the home solar array and your electric car functions as a storage unit.


Of course living in the far north the cold presents a bit of a problem for a battery powered vehicle. Cold limits a battery's power and the need for interior heat places even greater demands on that diminished store of energy."


The cold is a problem, and I am curious to see how electric car batteries are impacted by really cold weather. How much less charge can it hold, how quickly does the battery drain? One of my friends, located in Minneapolis so not far north, says she can use an app on her phone to crank the heat in her car before she gets into it and while its still plugged in, the car is warm when she gets in and hasn't reduced battery charge.
 
12/08/2018 10:43AM

"
A perk of growing moss is that it's pretty:

"

Understatement!
 
flopnfolds
distinguished member (487)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/08/2018 10:45AM
: "flopnfolds:
For work, I wish the airlines such as Delta, who I fly for work, offered a carbon offset button as a way to offset the emissions of flying. There are thing such as the Terra Pass, but I haven't really investigated them. I would like the airlines to make it easy, "Click Here to Add a $5 Fee" to offset your emissions.
"



I agree that Delta could make it much easier but here's a link that may interest you.


https://www.delta.com/content/www/en_US/about-delta/corporate-responsibility/carbon-emissions-calculator.html"


Interesting. Thanks.
 
Captn Tony
distinguished member(1321)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/08/2018 11:32AM
What's with all the civility??
 
12/08/2018 12:07PM
Miss Molly, I found this statement interesting:
" When it comes to removing carbon from the air, no land plant is its equal or even close. A 10' by 20' patch of moss does the work of 250 trees."
Mosses do tend to store carbon in forms more recalcitrant to decomposition than grasses..., and certainly peatlands are good sinks, but I doubt their carbon fixation rates are as high as vascular plants. Maybe part of it is that they can fix carbon in parts of the year when the vascular plants are dormant and are more resistant to processes that return carbon to the air... Can you throw me a source for the '250 trees' thing?
Your plantings are great!
 
missmolly
distinguished member(9050)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/08/2018 12:41PM
rtallent: " Miss Molly, I found this statement interesting:
" When it comes to removing carbon from the air, no land plant is its equal or even close. A 10' by 20' patch of moss does the work of 250 trees."
Mosses do tend to store carbon in forms more recalcitrant to decomposition than grasses..., and certainly peatlands are good sinks, but I doubt their carbon fixation rates are as high as vascular plants. Maybe part of it is that they can fix carbon in parts of the year when the vascular plants are dormant and are more resistant to processes that return carbon to the air... Can you throw me a source for the '250 trees' thing?
Your plantings are great!"


I read about it here.

However, I under-quoted their asserted number, which is a 275-tree equivalency.

At other sites, I've read that moss has no land plant-equivalent for removing carbon. It's only equal at this crucial task is a particular sea alga.

Glad you like the moss! I sure enjoy it and miss it when it's under snow. I like to cover tree trunks and rocks with it too. Here's an example and you might be able to discern that the moss on the rock is different than my ground mosses. I've found three kinds of moss that like to grow on rock and this is the plushest. There's another that's a deep green:

 
missmolly
distinguished member(9050)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/08/2018 12:52PM
Captn Tony: "What's with all the civility??"

Anytime you're feeling like you need it, I'm happy to give you a cyber-karate chop.
 
12/08/2018 01:16PM
Well, I looked at the article and then back at the CNN article and at the website for the producers of the 'City Tree' product that uses mosses. Supporting studies that are posted at the site are for filtering of nitrogen oxides and particulates, and I think they are comparing efficacy of those functions to that '275 tree' statement. Couldn't find any underlying study for the statement that the 'City Tree' sequesters 250 metric tons of carbon per year, unless they mean carbon in particulates by filtration... and even so, that is a huge estimate. The 'City Tree' also uses fans to move city air through the mosses which are arrayed in a vertical structure, and that helps with filtration. It is an interesting innovation for the urban environment, and probably worth the cost if it cleans air as well as they claim.
None of this is to say that mosses aren't great plants in the environment! I delight in the feather mosses of the boreal forest and the mixes of sphagnum in the wetlands. Am sure you likely have several species going in your moss plantings. Needs a handlens and a good key to start putting names on them.
I will get off at the next stop, as I am getting away from the main thread topic.
 
missmolly
distinguished member(9050)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/08/2018 01:42PM
rtallent: " Well, I looked at the article and then back at the CNN article and at the website for the producers of the 'City Tree' product that uses mosses. Supporting studies that are posted at the site are for filtering of nitrogen oxides and particulates, and I think they are comparing efficacy of those functions to that '275 tree' statement. Couldn't find any underlying study for the statement that the 'City Tree' sequesters 250 metric tons of carbon per year, unless they mean carbon in particulates by filtration... and even so, that is a huge estimate. The 'City Tree' also uses fans to move city air through the mosses which are arrayed in a vertical structure, and that helps with filtration. It is an interesting innovation for the urban environment, and probably worth the cost if it cleans air as well as they claim.
None of this is to say that mosses aren't great plants in the environment! I delight in the feather mosses of the boreal forest and the mixes of sphagnum in the wetlands. Am sure you likely have several species going in your moss plantings. Needs a handlens and a good key to start putting names on them.
I will get off at the next stop, as I am getting away from the main thread topic."


Since City Tree is a commercial company and they're making the claim, it might be akin to a burger joint claiming they make the "world's best burger." After all, "mark" is the heart of "marketing."

It's cool that you know so much about moss! Yeah, I have many species in my garden. I have a couple smaller patches where I have ten or so different kinds snuggled up to each other.
 
Banksiana
distinguished member(1679)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/08/2018 04:30PM
The mass of carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere by photosynthesis is closely related to the biomass of the organism that sequesters it; the removed carbon is fixed as plant material (sugars, starches, proteins etc) of which carbon is the basic building block. If an area of moss is capable of sequestering more carbon than an area of trees it would need to have a dehydrated biomass greater than than the dehydrated biomass of the trees in the same area. While I want this to be the case (Moss Power!) I don't think it adds up.

I too love moss and have tried to encourage it to recolonize the rock upon which my house rests. I'd greatly appreciate any insight on the process of encouraging moss colonization in disrupted landscapes. Miss Molly your moss scapes are stunning!
 
LindenTree
distinguished member(2560)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/08/2018 04:49PM
Captn Tony: "What's with all the civility??"


Not sure, I figured this thread wouldn't last this long.
Maybe the mods are keeping a close eye on it.
 
missmolly
distinguished member(9050)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/08/2018 05:46PM
Banksiana, I simply walk through the woods, find a moss I like, and then move it a similar area on my lot. So, moss on wood goes to more wood and moss on the forest floor goes to the forest floor.
 
Pinetree
distinguished member(13000)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished membermaster membermaster member
 
12/08/2018 07:28PM
flopnfolds: "Banksiana: "Pinetree:



I'm not opposed to electric vehicles in anyway. I thought your question of why ev's don't have solar panels interesting and took a dive into it. A better option is to use the home solar array and your electric car functions as a storage unit.



Of course living in the far north the cold presents a bit of a problem for a battery powered vehicle. Cold limits a battery's power and the need for interior heat places even greater demands on that diminished store of energy."



The cold is a problem, and I am curious to see how electric car batteries are impacted by really cold weather. How much less charge can it hold, how quickly does the battery drain? One of my friends, located in Minneapolis so not far north, says she can use an app on her phone to crank the heat in her car before she gets into it and while its still plugged in, the car is warm when she gets in and hasn't reduced battery charge. "


I agree with you both and electric cars is a learning curve for all of us including more efficiency by trial and error and new technology.
 
primitiveguy
distinguished member (194)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/08/2018 09:22PM
KarlBAndersen1: "OK – say I have a bad attitude. You are probably right.
I don’t think we have a chance.
Windmills are cool. So are electric cars.
What are you going to make them from? Yep – steel made from IRON. And aluminum. And where are we going to get it? We mine it. We dig it out of the ground – with BIG!! Machines. And then we transport it to foundries where it’s cooked down in really huge ovens that never – EVER!! - shut down. And they’re fired by coal, because it’s plentiful and HOT!
To make steel you have to first ship the raw iron to foundries, and then ship the refined iron to mills where it’s again cooked into a liquid state with added minerals like manganese, zinc, vanadium. Etc. to make different grades of steel.
Oh – and all those minerals need to be mined and shipped, and refined, etc. as well.
And all this stuff is shipped by ship, train, truck, etc. which also have to be made, and fueled by BIG!! Mills and factories that NEVER shut down.
And the roads they’re transported on need to be built – yes, out of petroleum and stone – and maintained. With BIG!! machines that need to be built. Out of steel, etc.
And this is all fueled and lubricated by petroleum products that are pumped out of the ground by BIG! pump jacks that are made out of – what? Steel. That had to be mined and processed and shipped, etc.
And when we do get to the point of making an ELECTRIC car in a HUGE factory built of steel, the motor is powered by an armature that is made of COPPER!!! windings. A mineral. That also has to be mined by BIG!! machines and processed in coal fired plants and shipped on roads, etc.
Oh – and those batteries? Do I need to go there?
Did you ever see those wind mill blades being transported down the road by those HUGE!! Trucks burning diesel? Those trucks that have to be built out of steel? (Look above) And it’s not just one truck – or person. To haul one blade it’s a procession of trucks and people – warning trucks, escorts, cops, etc. All burning fuel. Needing food and housing, etc. And wearing down the roads made from petroleum, etc.
On and on and on.
I have a bad attitude that comes up whenever we talk about reversing any damage we have done.
It ain’t gonna happen.
And even if ANY progress is made, it will happen in countries that CAN make some very miniscule changes. But those changes won’t be enough.
Our current 7 billion people will soon be 9 billion. And they will need everything we need now.
The only hope for a brighter future is to pull the plug on Humanity. Just like in some SyFy movie.
Let starvation and disease and plague take the majority of humans.
Stop the incessant damage we’re doing and let the Earth heal.
We have already filled this boat full of holes, and were filling the boat with more and more people faster than we’re fixing the holes.
It’s gonna sink – and it ain’t gonna be pretty.
Too many people are living in denial and think life is a Disney movie. (Remember those?)
"


You’re for sure right. But I’m trying to grow/preserve all my own food, make my clothes from hides, trying not to drive. Hope to buy a horse to supplement my bike riding. But you’re probably right, way less humans will be the only real solution. Contribute what you can to Svalbard!
 
Zwater
distinguished member (232)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/09/2018 12:04AM
Is it global warming or climate change? Think about it. Suns spots, cows farting too much creating too much methane, moss versus trees, they say the ozone layer has healed its self, it doesn't end...
Do we all need to be vegetarians, and drive battery powered vehicles to save the planet? I think not.
 
missmolly
distinguished member(9050)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/09/2018 08:46AM
PG, I once interviewed a Norwegian kayaker and I asked him where he'd like to ideally kayak.

"Somewhere warm" he said, "but I'm not willing to burn the carbon to get there."

That guy reminds me of you.
 
Mnpat
distinguished member (114)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/09/2018 09:10AM
More batteries equals more mines. More mines equals more pollution. The proposed mines near the boundary waters is one that would provide materials for batteries. Electric cars are good in theory but terrible in reality. Be careful what you ask for.
 
Baxendale
Guest Paddler
 
12/09/2018 09:12AM
Re: City Tree - No chance.

Assuming it was placed and maintained according to their recommendation, about 27% of the molecular weight of CO2 is contributed by C, meaning 144,000 lbs of fixed C. The mass of one of them does. Ot increase by that much each year—not to mention that the mass would be greater due to the H, etc also fixed with the C, not to mention the 200 lbs of particulates thry claim are captured per year...

...or are all the particulates, carbs, and sugars just washed off the panel? ??
 
Baxendale
Guest Paddler
 
12/09/2018 09:21AM
“Does not increase”
 
missmolly
distinguished member(9050)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/09/2018 10:56AM
Baxendale: "Re: City Tree - No chance.


Assuming it was placed and maintained according to their recommendation, about 27% of the molecular weight of CO2 is contributed by C, meaning 144,000 lbs of fixed C. The mass of one of them does. Ot increase by that much each year—not to mention that the mass would be greater due to the H, etc also fixed with the C, not to mention the 200 lbs of particulates thry claim are captured per year...


...or are all the particulates, carbs, and sugars just washed off the panel? ??"


So many smart people on this site!

Now, does anyone know how moss disposes of particulates?
 
mastertangler
distinguished member(6025)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/09/2018 12:36PM
The climate has always changed.......from very warm periods in the Middle Ages to ice ages.......so all this emphasis on suddenly mankind is the "problem" should be viewed with much skepticism. Take mankind off the planet and ou will still have climate change, you will still have droughts, floods, wildfires, hurricanes etc.

Electric cars? Think they're green? Guess again.

Carbon tax? Hitting our producers and industries with taxes and limits on their production capabilities? Hmmmm.....I wonder how that will go? They will pass on their costs to the consumer and many people will be out of a job when a companies carbon limits have been reached. Can you say poverty and misery? See France lately?

Are you aware that the Paris Accord was largely about global redistribution of wealth? Droughts in Eithopia or floods in India must be the result of climate change caused by countries like the United States and therefore we must pay for the damage "we" caused. (Thank you Mr Trump for getting us out)

And all based on what? A theory which has not followed the computer projections upon which the entire model is based. Think long and hard before you empower corrupt and inept politicians who haven't even run a popsicle stand over your liberty and labors.

One thing we can all agree on is less gunk in the air is a good thing. What we will not agree on is to the extent mankind effects climate and wether a solution which requires government to "save us" is very smart or even practical. Throw a bunch of regs back on at our own risk.......
We will end up so bound in red tape we won't be able to operate, that's an easy assessment to make.
 
Captn Tony
distinguished member(1321)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/09/2018 12:53PM
The only solution is sun power via better technology. Which is wave power, water power, wind power, or solar panels of some kind, Any thing else will use petroleum or fusion and I've never been real excited about fusion, leaves too much long lasting residue. All other power sources are carbon based and even though natural gas is cleaner then coal but it still produces CO2. And when we run out of natural gas the coal mines will open back up.
Population decline would work but it is hell on the economy.
Maybe we could mine the ocean plastic deposits and burn that!
 
Pinetree
distinguished member(13000)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished membermaster membermaster member
 
12/09/2018 12:56PM
Back to the original topic?
 
mapsguy1955
distinguished member(735)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/09/2018 01:01PM
What we know is that there is one incredible gullible person among us and in order to do what we are talking about, we must understand that there are more than one who will ultimately go kicking and screaming into the future, but... They will go. There are more of us. What is that cliche about horses and water? Sighs...
 
missmolly
distinguished member(9050)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/09/2018 02:42PM
Pinetree: "Back to the original topic?"

Okay, it wasn't that long ago that Americans lived in 1000-square foot houses. Now many of us live like relative royalty and I'm one of them. I have made my big house more energy efficient with south-facing skylights, which raise the temp upstairs several degrees on a sunny day. I have double honeycomb blinds on all windows and insulated curtains atop that. Of course, all my lights are LED and I keep the temp at 67 by day and 62 by night, but my house is still big for a crowded world. I removed the two sliding glass doors because they're big holes in a house and replaced them with thermal doors.

My mom has a 2900 square foot house with a swimming pool she doesn't use. It takes two furnaces to heat it and two air conditioners to cool it.

The day is coming when I'll downsize to an 800-square foot house with spray foam insulation, solar panels, and triple pane windows. I'll also have a fenced garden and raise and can much of my food.

I'd like to see the child tax deduction limited to just one kid.
 
TomT
distinguished member(5299)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/09/2018 03:12PM
missmolly: "
I'd like to see the child tax deduction limited to just one kid. "


Yes!! I'd go as far as giving tax breaks for getting a vasectomy or hysterectomy. After 4 kids start paying penalties for more natural kids - and this is huge - get large breaks for adopting. Make adoption more affordable instead of the "for profit" game it is. Make adopting kids cool like the way it's cool to get a rescue dog. Sounds strange to say it that way but you get the point. Flip the paradigm - Make adoption attractive and the norm.

I keep thinking of these families with 8,10, or more kids. Really? They couldn't start adopting after 4 of their own? A customer of mine has 4 kids of their own and their 5th is a baby girl from China that they adopted. Kudos to this family, they get it.

 
mapsguy1955
distinguished member(735)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/09/2018 03:37PM
TomT: "missmolly: "
I'd like to see the child tax deduction limited to just one kid. "



Yes!! I'd go as far as giving tax breaks for getting a vasectomy or hysterectomy. After 4 kids start paying penalties for more natural kids - and this is huge - get large breaks for adopting. Make adoption more affordable instead of the "for profit" game it is. Make adopting kids cool like the way it's cool to get a rescue dog. Sounds strange to say it that way but you get the point. Flip the paradigm - Make adoption attractive and the norm.


I keep thinking of these families with 8,10, or more kids. Really? They couldn't start adopting after 4 of their own? A customer of mine has 4 kids of their own and their 5th is a baby girl from China that they adopted. Kudos to this family, they get it.


"


I'm good with penalties after two kids. I LOVE the tax break idea! I could actually go for a payment to GET an unreversable sterilization. That could be taken as a rabbit hole though. Maybe they could be free. If the right wing wasn't so anti-abortion, I'm positive they would have thought of the pay for sterilization thing, especially for the fiscally disadvantaged. We don't know that they haven't actually.
This is all an education thing. For the most part, people with big families are following religious dogma or don't have a lot of education, or BOTH.
 
mjmkjun
distinguished member(2218)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/09/2018 03:39PM
missmolly: "Pinetree: "Back to the original topic?"
...
I'd like to see the child tax deduction limited to just one kid. "


That would get attention, I suspect. Attach money as an incentive and folks are likely to respond favorably.
 
missmolly
distinguished member(9050)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/09/2018 05:10PM
We also have to let go of the idea of perpetual domestic growth. With fewer kids, growth will slow and that needs to be okay. "More, more, MORE!" is no way to live.
 
Banksiana
distinguished member(1679)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/09/2018 05:12PM
A change in mind set. Fewer children. Smaller, efficient homes. Less stuff. Learn the joy in moving around outside under your own power; almost nothing better in this world.

Much could be accomplished if folks would spend less time chasing things (and constantly working to pay for them) and measure their success by the amount of time that is their own. Your time is finite; use it wisely. Can't recall anyone's last words being "if only I spent more time at work!".
 
andym
distinguished member(4455)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/09/2018 05:34PM
Yes, population and constant economic growth are both unsustainable. A colleague of mine gave an interesting speech in 1980. He started with the assumption that population growth can’t continue indefinitely. From there he explained that we can’t also have continual growth of the economy because everything takes energy to make and so continual economic growth means continual rising energy consumption. The other way to grow the economy is through receiving services but there are only so many hours in the day. His solution was to go to shorter work weeks and fill the rest of the time with fine arts such as music, painting, and writing that require little resources. The problem is that our economic system makes that hard for people to adopt that strategy. Many people need to work full time or two jobs just to make ends meet. Instead we keep assuming that new technology will give us a way out while continuing to use up our limited supply of oil and gas. With or without climate change, remember that he wrote the speech in 1980, we will get to a crisis. It’s just a question of when and what it will look like.

BTW, I’m all for providing economic incentives for smaller families and adopting. My wife and I wound up not having kids but planned to adopt if we decided to have a family. There’s a lot of adoption in her family and still plenty of kids who can use a home. But I think you have to structure the incentives very carefully to not have unintended negative consequences.
 
12/09/2018 06:41PM
On more of a worldwide basis, a main set of correlates to lowered birth rates are opportunities for education and economic empowerment for females. Just sayin'
 
overthehill
distinguished member(4413)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/09/2018 07:06PM
Just this afternoon I walked past some old items hung next to each other on the wall in the barn/shop. An old folding wooden clothes wringer station (hand crank),a reel type push mower, a junk crosscut 2-man saw, and a set of old horse hames.....all collaged on a few feet of wall.
For a second I chuckled to myself and thought of this thread. I imagined stepping back and snapping a picture of above items, and posting :
"Here is some of the answer!" Due to my lack of a camera and attachment skills, that didn't materialize.
A few hours later I found myself reading this thread again and remembered an old set of bull clamps hanging on a nail just a couple feet on down the wall. Wow- that would fit the bill for a simple solution to what I just read. I now like my simple solutions even less.
 
mastertangler
distinguished member(6025)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/09/2018 07:21PM
I am for liberty, tolerance and freedom. I am hearing a lot of folk lately talking of how how we need to take the emphasis off of individual liberty and empower government over all aspects of our lives.

How far away are we from the government rewarding or punishing us based on politically correct policies and behaviors? Drive a lot? Perhaps those people need to pay lots more because the GPS tracker has determined that you used up your monthly allotment of miles. Have more than 2 kids? Hmmm......that's a bit of a problem.......to fat? Maybe you smoke or drink? Yup, you really need an "intervention" after all we need healthy people if government health care is actually going to work. Don't forget....."we are always watching".

Far fetched? Not at all......already happening in China where you get an approval or disapproval based on behavior. With all the technology it isn't so hard to do.

Freedom, liberty and tolerance......old fashioned I suppose but it is the natural preferred condition of mankind.
 
Mnpat
distinguished member (114)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/09/2018 07:21PM
I agree with mastertangler, just like the Paris accord the global warming/climate change was invented to distribute wealth. Look at where the money has gone for green energy. Right into the pockets of politicians. Yes they all care so much about the climate flying around in private jets. How did Nancy pelosi’s brother in law get a 737 million dollar green energy loan. Look at solyndra. It’s all a fraud to steal your money.
 
12/09/2018 07:39PM
Ya know... if we quit wearing those darn pfd’s, we could help that population problem out.
 
mapsguy1955
distinguished member(735)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/09/2018 07:44PM
I am so sick of these tired memes that state something to the effect that making intelligent decisions means we embrace Marxism... We are doomed when the people in charge are those who despise and/or feel threatened by intellectual curiosity and the science of learning more. These folks should all be riding horses and communicating via smoke signals and flags. Why should they reap have any benefits of science, when they feel entitled to pick and choose to utilize and extoll only that science which is approved by their masters, and fight tooth and nail anything which doesn't toe the party line?

I'm sorry. Anybody that doesn't "believe" that we are the biggest part of climate change, needs to be off of this thread. This isn't for you. This is only for people who actually care about more than themselves and would like to be able to share most of what we have been blessed to experience with future generations.
 
mastertangler
distinguished member(6025)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/09/2018 07:49PM
Be careful Pat......the climate change advocates are polite until you disagree with them, then all bets are off.

Just for giggles, and another perspective, let's listen to what Prager u has to say. Lots of interesting perspectives in 5 minutes from Dennis Prager "University". Sign up, it's free.

Now here is a different take on green energy (the horror! ;-)

The greenest energy?
 
missmolly
distinguished member(9050)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/09/2018 09:00PM
"For this thread we will assume climate change is real, and mostly due to human activity."
 
Pinetree
distinguished member(13000)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished membermaster membermaster member
 
12/09/2018 09:02PM
missmolly: ""For this thread we will assume climate change is real, and mostly due to human activity.""

Agree,otherwise it is heating up very fast in this forums atmosphere.
 
primitiveguy
distinguished member (194)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/09/2018 09:38PM
The only thing one can say for sure about MTs posts is that he never substantiates his opinions with factual links. They are just his opinion, nothing more. When others directly refute everything he presents as fact but is actually only opinion, he punts, ignoring opposing fact documented rebuttals
 
primitiveguy
distinguished member (194)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/09/2018 09:51PM
Zwater: "Is it global warming or climate change? Think about it. Suns spots, cows farting too much creating too much methane, moss versus trees, they say the ozone layer has healed its self, it doesn't end...
Do we all need to be vegetarians, and drive battery powered vehicles to save the planet? I think not."


Idiotic post
 
Pinetree
distinguished member(13000)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished membermaster membermaster member
 
12/09/2018 10:12PM
The State of the Climate report says that the 20 warmest years on record have been in the past 22 years, with the 2015-2018 making up the top four.Fact.
Reports this week said sun spots right now are cooler than normal.
Co2 levels highest in 200,000 years. Experiments 1000 times over show co2 levels trap warm air.
Fact sea levels are rising as predicted 40 years ago and Greenland ice cap melting faster than thought. Lucky for Floridians your born now much or all will be under water in 100 years.

 
Zwater
distinguished member (232)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/09/2018 10:53PM
primitiveguy: "Zwater: "Is it global warming or climate change? Think about it. Suns spots, cows farting too much creating too much methane, moss versus trees, they say the ozone layer has healed its self, it doesn't end...
Do we all need to be vegetarians, and drive battery powered vehicles to save the planet? I think not."



Idiotic post"


Then just tell me is it global warming or climate change. Interested to hear your opinion? Thanks.
 
andym
distinguished member(4455)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/10/2018 02:42AM
On average the global atmosphere is warming. But as it warms there is more energy that drives variations and so you get not just slightly warmer weather but more intense highs, lows, storms, droughts... overall more extreme behavior. So climate change is a better description of what we will experience.
 
mjmkjun
distinguished member(2218)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/10/2018 05:08AM
Very nice summarization, Andy.
"The term "climate change" is often used to refer specifically to anthropogenic climate change (also known as global warming). Anthropogenic climate change is caused by human activity, as opposed to changes in climate that may have resulted as part of Earth's natural processes." ~ Wikipedia

What if we'd change the subject title a bit to read, "OK, smog is real, now what?"
I'm not suggesting that this is actualized but rather, theoretically, to make a point.
 
WhiteWolf
distinguished member(5136)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/10/2018 06:59AM
You are NOT going to get more extreme behavior in the lower atmosphere based on a GLOBAL rise in temps. Rather you would need a global "net difference" in temps to see the extremes that are "said" to occur. If everything warmed as fast and on par as what some say-- the weather would actually become somewhat benign. That is meteorological fact. Cold air is king with forecasting weather and is what drives ALL forms of severe weather - minus the heat transfer from equatorial regions to the poles (Tropical Systems) -- and even that can be argued on and ACE (Accumulated Cyclonic Energy) in both the PAC and ATL has seen as downfall in recent decades compared to decades past.

I don't mean to change the OP from "we will assume Climate change is real and based mostly on human change" -- I respect that - even though I disagree. I hope the same is done for other future threads which are coming as the field is "seeing" things which most will not agree with due to the presumed notion that only Co2 is to blame.

I could really off (like I'am writing a book) but will leave it at this. There is other factors involved such as increased water vapor ( from the warm oceans (which add the extra water vapor) that "may" result in natural cyclical variations / or / of which we don't yet understand with underground seismic and volcanic activity. H20 vapor- which is a much more powerful GG than a trace gas-- even if C02 has a positive feedback on H20 Vapor is now being studied as a negative force (CLOUDS) and an actual cooling effect.

I do not have my job in the weather field for over 20 years for being dogmatic on any position when it comes to weather/climate. (That IS my job). I respect all thoughts and have seen a lot. Just remember this; as can be said in anything for those that actually are in the field; what you see in the media IN your field usually makes you shake you head. This climate deal is not a solved thing one way or the other. Anyone that wants to debate that with me (again being that this is basically my job) - is going to see things (both sides) that they will not be able to explain ON BOTH SIDES.

An open mind is all I ask.

my takes on H20 vapor- but really one must understand the mixing ratios involved which is too detailed / technical; for here.

By quantity, there is much more water vapor than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Water vapor varies from a trace in extremely cold and dry air to about 4% in extremely warm and humid air. The average amount of water vapor in the atmosphere averaged for all locations is between 2 and 3%. Carbon dioxide levels are near 0.04%. That means there is more than 60 times as much water vapor in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide in average conditions. Both water vapor and Carbon dioxide are greenhouse gases. They both trap outgoing longwave radiation between the earth and the atmosphere. This has an effect of keeping temperatures warmer than they otherwise would be. Carbon dioxide is a more efficient greenhouse gas than water vapor when both are in equal quantities. However, they are not in equal quantities. There is much more water vapor than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere






Water vapor + or - with earth warming or cooling?
 
flopnfolds
distinguished member (487)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/10/2018 08:10AM
WhiteWolf: "You are NOT going to get more extreme behavior in the lower atmosphere based on a GLOBAL rise in temps. Rather you would need a global "net difference" in temps to see the extremes that are "said" to occur. If everything warmed as fast and on par as what some say-- the weather would actually become somewhat benign. That is meteorological fact. Cold air is king with forecasting weather and is what drives ALL forms of severe weather - minus the heat transfer from equatorial regions to the poles (Tropical Systems) -- and even that can be argued on and ACE (Accumulated Cyclonic Energy) in both the PAC and ATL has seen as downfall in recent decades compared to decades past.


I don't mean to change the OP from "we will assume Climate change is real and based mostly on human change" -- I respect that - even though I disagree. I hope the same is done for other future threads which are coming as the field is "seeing" things which most will not agree with due to the presumed notion that only Co2 is to blame.

I could really off (like I'am writing a book) but will leave it at this. There is other factors involved such as increased water vapor ( from the warm oceans (which add the extra water vapor) that "may" result in natural cyclical variations / or / of which we don't yet understand with underground seismic and volcanic activity. H20 vapor- which is a much more powerful GG than a trace gas-- even if C02 has a positive feedback on H20 Vapor is now being studied as a negative force (CLOUDS) and an actual cooling effect.


I do not have my job in the weather field for over 20 years for being dogmatic on any position when it comes to weather/climate. (That IS my job). I respect all thoughts and have seen a lot. Just remember this; as can be said in anything for those that actually are in the field; what you see in the media IN your field usually makes you shake you head. This climate deal is not a solved thing one way or the other. Anyone that wants to debate that with me (again being that this is basically my job) - is going to see things (both sides) that they will not be able to explain ON BOTH SIDES.

An open mind is all I ask.

my takes on H20 vapor- but really one must understand the mixing ratios involved which is too detailed / technical; for here.

By quantity, there is much more water vapor than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Water vapor varies from a trace in extremely cold and dry air to about 4% in extremely warm and humid air. The average amount of water vapor in the atmosphere averaged for all locations is between 2 and 3%. Carbon dioxide levels are near 0.04%. That means there is more than 60 times as much water vapor in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide in average conditions. Both water vapor and Carbon dioxide are greenhouse gases. They both trap outgoing longwave radiation between the earth and the atmosphere. This has an effect of keeping temperatures warmer than they otherwise would be. Carbon dioxide is a more efficient greenhouse gas than water vapor when both are in equal quantities. However, they are not in equal quantities. There is much more water vapor than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere



Water vapor + or - with earth warming or cooling? "


From my understanding, water vapor is a feedback loop. Because of increased co2 emissions, there is an increased amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, which can super charge the impacts of any weather events. Water vapor can increase the affects greenhouse gas affects, but the amount of water vapor is due to increase non soluble gasses in the atmosphere.

AND there is consensus among scientists who study climate. Virtually all studies show that scientist believe man-made emissions are contributing to climate change.
 
Pinetree
distinguished member(13000)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished membermaster membermaster member
 
12/10/2018 08:11AM
Whitewolf I will agree,there is many variables involved. Just like any physical and chemical reaction.
Sometimes it takes a lot to change something,sometimes very little.
Yes water vapor and humidity play a big part.

Back to the original post if it is real. We will see a change in forest makeup of species of trees in the BWCA. We are seeing more oak in northern Minnesota along with maple now.
 
arctic
distinguished member(5231)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/10/2018 08:18AM
WhiteWolf: " There is other factors involved such as increased water vapor ( from the warm oceans (which add the extra water vapor) that "may" result in natural cyclical variations / or / of which we don't yet understand with underground seismic and volcanic activity. H20 vapor- which is a much more powerful GG than a trace gas-- even if C02 has a positive feedback on H20 Vapor is now being studied as a negative force (CLOUDS) and an actual cooling effect.


I do not have my job in the weather field for over 20 years for being dogmatic on any position when it comes to weather/climate.

By quantity, there is much more water vapor than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Water vapor varies from a trace in extremely cold and dry air to about 4% in extremely warm and humid air. The average amount of water vapor in the atmosphere averaged for all locations is between 2 and 3%. Carbon dioxide levels are near 0.04%. That means there is more than 60 times as much water vapor in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide in average conditions. Both water vapor and Carbon dioxide are greenhouse gases.
"


1. The oceans are warming as the atmosphere warms. There is virtually ZERO evidence that volcanic activity is accounting for this.

2. While water vapor is, and always has been, a big factor in trapping heat, isn't it interesting that the places with the GREATEST amount of warming are where and when the atmosphere has a very low amount of water vapor---like the arctic and high altitude sites.

From my frequent contacts with the National Weather Service, I've learned that nearly ALL of their mission is in WEATHER forecasting--and very little is on climate science, certainly not the underlying causes of climate change.
 
JackpineJim
distinguished member(633)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/10/2018 08:21AM
I hiked part of the Ice Age Trail in northern Wisconsin several years back and noodled over what it must have been like 10,000 years ago with ice sheets a mile thick a d rushing meltwater rivers scouring the terrain. I wished I could have been around to see those sights but I came to the conclusion that I'd prefer this current warmer climate if given the choice.
All the arguments (talking points) we read today would apply equally back then but I'll bet the people scratching out an existence were thankful for the climate change they were experiencing - probably basked in the warm of the sun when it poked out. I surmise that when they inched closer to their camp fires at night they wouldn't give a rats ass about the CO2 they were generating, or have even imagined, in their wildest dreams, today's prevailing concerns about a warming climate. I know this is neither here nor there...

OvertheHill, I'm still laughing about those bull clamps... Those who think this is a good idea, line up - who wants to go first.
 
mastertangler
distinguished member(6025)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/10/2018 08:22AM
Climate Change is real, now what?

Of course Climate Change is real, the only sure thing about the Climate is it is going to change. What is at issue is to what extent it is man caused. Poll scientists if there is Climate Change and you will get an overwhelming positive consensus. Ask the question > "is the change man caused" and you will get some hesitancy even though many will assent in the positive because of political correctness (stray from the narrative and potentially suffer consequences which include not getting grants and not getting your work published). It is far from a settled issue particularly so since the computer projections, upon which the entire model is based, are far from accurate.

But I digress........."Now what" is the question and topic at hand.

The Climate alarmists have spent the last couple of decades convincing the worlds populace on an imminent crisis...............A crisis that can only be averted through stringent measures. These stringent measures can only be accomplished via government imposition. "Something simply must be done or we will all perish" is the message and "it must be done now or all is lost" is the constant refrain.

They have spent the entirety of their time in convincing the peoples of the planet of an impending crisis and desiring power to solve the crisis. How interesting.......government creates a crisis and stands back awaiting society to grant them power over their lives ("please, save us").

"Now what?, (we can ask the question again) Well, the concept of a "Carbon Tax" is widely accepted by the Climate Change Community as an effective response to fossil fuel usage. What does that really mean? What happens to industries which use up their allotted units? Do they go silent? What happens to employees? Does industry purchase more "credits"? What happens to the cost of all goods and services as this "tax" is imposed? Obviously all goods and services will cost more. Who will that hurt? It won't hurt the people with means, the wealthy, but it will hurt the middle and especially the lower class (who will then clamor for more government assistance all at a time when revenues to government coffers will shrink due to a stalling effect due in large part to the carbon tax and added regulation). And of course we can expect corruption as the nexus between politicians and industry will have significant momentum to skirt the carbon tax laws ("We might be able to find you some carbon credits but first kick in a little to my reelection campaign" etc.). We will be able to add to Websters definitions......"Carbon Cronyism"

And along the same lines if Climate Change is "real" and is the cause of droughts, floods and wildfires, then reparations are in order on a worldwide basis. Ah yes, redistribution of wealth on a global scale.........can you hear a giant sucking sound? That is money from western industrialized countries going to third world nations as every drought and flood must be payed for by the culprits (i.e. the United States primarily). This was a major component of the Paris Accord so no, it is not fiction but rather something which is not reported on by most news outlets so most Americans dont really know.

Lastly...........do we really believe that other countries will act in good faith? Do we REALLY believe that China and India etc. etc. will actually curtail their carbon related activities? China literally cannot for their people will rebel.........they have tasted capitalism and decided that it is good. So the United States can self impose carbon restrictions (and in effect self destruct economically) but it will matter little in the big scheme of things as the peoples and governments of the planet will not cooperate.

I believe that wealth and prosperity is the foundation for the technology which will be developed which will either continue to improve the cleanliness of fossil fuel usage or an entirely new technology will be brought about. But make us poor through insistence on a reduction of efficient and inexpensive energy and the ability to secure our future will certainly suffer. There is no doubt, the person or organization which can find a replacement to fossil fuels which is efficient and cost effective will be the wealthiest on the planet. That fact has not escaped the observation of powerful and imaginative people I can assure you.

The positive side of the equation is the United States is headed in the right direction when it comes to a reduction of pollutants. Instead of constantly complaining and harping "that the end is near" we should actually pat ourselves on the back for a job well done. The trajectory is mostly positive as long as we dont succumb to empowering bureaucrats over our means of production as per what the Climate Alarmists desire........the politicians will not "save us or the planet" but rather make us serfs and paupers and actually blunt the forward progress of technology.

There is a philosophy by which society can prosper and its this..............When we as a country consider cost/benefit analysis > Much cost for little benefit is not wise.



 
WhiteWolf
distinguished member(5136)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/10/2018 08:25AM
I am not saying that AGW is not a factor in overall warming of the earth--- even an idiot would NOT agree with that-- what I'am saying is look deeper into the idea of oceans warming which add much more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere than a trace gas. As mentioned - this added C02 might have a + or - effect on how water vapor effects us. The crucial question is why are the oceans warming? Is it natural? Or not? I believe we are seeing a decadal sign of the ATL cooling from a warm high recently seen to a rather dramatic cooling, The PAC is so big its hard to put in a certain perspective but after the Super Nino's of 2014-15, it's common to think it will cool. It simply can't get much warmer, IT TAKES YEARS for this to translate down and confuses many in the field, Overall- the oceans on a wide spectrum (both surface and underneath) are now undergoing a cooling. Especially the North Atlantic. When the North Atlantic cools to things seen before- you will see the Arctic ice extent grow- but not necessarily the Arctic temps-- that will lag.
 
Pinetree
distinguished member(13000)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished membermaster membermaster member
 
12/10/2018 08:29AM
The lows in Minnesota at night seem higher than the past and I think it is we have more water vapor in the air and we don't cool down as much. Dry air heats up and cools down faster. It seems even in cold spells are daily highs may stay down,but we still don't cool down as much at night.

 
mapsguy1955
distinguished member(735)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/10/2018 08:39AM
To suggest that the 1.4+ billion cars spewing HOT air into our atmosphere, not to mention every other manmade source of heat, does NOT affect our climate is incredibly dangerous to our future. When you add black carbon that ends up on our ice fields from human interactions with nature, we have a recipe for monumental disaster. We can slow and stop what we are doing. Will it fix it? Maybe, but it will take a while. My point is that anybody that is pushing debate without actively working to stop emissions while the debate continues, at this point, is personally endangering our future. There is too much data to ignore. Have the debate. I have no problem with that, but at least fight to clean up our planet and eliminate wasteful and dirty practices that cause pollution and harm biodiversity while we are having the debate. There is no downside to that. Nobody will care about who "won" the debate if we have a clean and diverse planet to share. This is way bigger than politics and egos.
 
WhiteWolf
distinguished member(5136)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/10/2018 08:48AM
arctic: "WhiteWolf: " There is other factors involved such as increased water vapor ( from the warm oceans (which add the extra water vapor) that "may" result in natural cyclical variations / or / of which we don't yet understand with underground seismic and volcanic activity. H20 vapor- which is a much more powerful GG than a trace gas-- even if C02 has a positive feedback on H20 Vapor is now being studied as a negative force (CLOUDS) and an actual cooling effect.



I do not have my job in the weather field for over 20 years for being dogmatic on any position when it comes to weather/climate.


By quantity, there is much more water vapor than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Water vapor varies from a trace in extremely cold and dry air to about 4% in extremely warm and humid air. The average amount of water vapor in the atmosphere averaged for all locations is between 2 and 3%. Carbon dioxide levels are near 0.04%. That means there is more than 60 times as much water vapor in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide in average conditions. Both water vapor and Carbon dioxide are greenhouse gases.
"



1. The oceans are warming as the atmosphere warms. There is virtually ZERO evidence that volcanic activity is accounting for this.


2. While water vapor is, and always has been, a big factor in trapping heat, isn't it interesting that the places with the GREATEST amount of warming are where and when the atmosphere has a very low amount of water vapor---like the arctic and high altitude sites.


From my frequent contacts with the National Weather Service, I've learned that nearly ALL of their mission is in WEATHER forecasting--and very little is on climate science, certainly not the underlying causes of climate change."


Your correct. Added water vapor will show first in the Arctic regions. Doing a study on this as I pen this. Mixing ratios of water vapor compared with dry air. The big question is -- added C02, and or added water vapor in a + feedback or - feedback.

From my workings with the NWS- I've seen things a little differently, And I work for them.
Always like the perspective from an observer like Arctic whom takes weather records. I treat your thoughts more highly than others. Arctic - I know your site and the NWS in Duluth has nothing but good things to say about you observations. I know some of the t guys/gals at DLH NWS>
 
Grizzlyman
distinguished member(619)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/10/2018 08:57AM
ORIGINAL TOPIC. If you want to debate climate change- start a new thread!!!

Here’s food for thought -another way of looking at this: why is energy consumption bad?

There’s nothing inherently bad about using energy. We have built awesome things. Crazy inventions that run on energy. We ultimately should be able to enjoy he fruits of our labor as a species and not have to sacrifice our capabilities.

Energy consumption is only “bad” because we have limited supplies of energy, and that energy is made in undersireable ways.

Reducing energy consumption should not be an end goal- our end goal should be the technology to power these things in better ways.

It’s a supply problem that we’re trying to solve with demand. We put our effort into demand because we’re not there yet with the supply. We should be putting more effort into supply.
 
missmolly
distinguished member(9050)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/10/2018 08:57AM
Poor ZaraSp00k, getting no respect: "For this thread we will assume climate change is real, and mostly due to human activity."

 
Pinetree
distinguished member(13000)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished membermaster membermaster member
 
12/10/2018 08:57AM
Seen a chart on Solar panel efficiency and how its ability to capture energy and convert went like from 10% to now 21% and models have now got it up to 27%. Efficiency is improving in leaps and bounds. Solar energy will always be there as long as the earth exists. Yes we still have to improve on battery storage.
 
WhiteWolf
distinguished member(5136)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/10/2018 09:03AM
Pinetree: "The lows in Minnesota at night seem higher than the past and I think it is we have more water vapor in the air and we don't cool down as much. Dry air heats up and cools down faster. It seems even in cold spells are daily highs may stay down,but we still don't cool down as much at night.

"


True-- the amount of record MIN/MAX (warmest lows recorded) far out weigh the amount record max or min temps recorded not only in MN - but most of the lower 48. I look at that as added water vapor (naturally) -- but- which could be looked at from the AGW crowd as added water vapor due to the positive effect of added carbon.

Lots of stuff in this that doesn't get talked about on both sides. Enjoy the conversation.

Sorry for the change of topic-- but it's inevitable, no?

Before my previou(s) post I thought of starting a thread that said something like "Climate Change for deniers" with the thread assuming the same--- I thought not, that it might make some upset.
 
Thread Locked from Reponses
missmolly
distinguished member(9050)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/10/2018 09:19AM
Pinetree: "Seen a chart on Solar panel efficiency and how its ability to capture energy and convert went like from 10% to now 21% and models have now got it up to 27%. Efficiency is improving in leaps and bounds. Solar energy will always be there as long as the earth exists. Yes we still have to improve on battery storage."

That's heartening, Pinetree. I've chatted with employees of all the big utilities. from PG&E to Con Ed, from Xcel to Duke and Southern, and they're all investing in green infrastructure. Their purpose is making a profit, so they wouldn't do it if they didn't believe in its profitability.
 
mastertangler
distinguished member(6025)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/10/2018 09:30AM
mapsguy1955: Have the debate. I have no problem with that, but at least fight to clean up our planet and eliminate wasteful and dirty practices that cause pollution and harm biodiversity while we are having the debate.
I am glad to hear you say that Mapsguy because for years I have been hearing "the Debate is over". As a person who embraces science that constant refrain has always troubled me........since when in science is the debate over when the results to a theory haven't been concluded with any specificity? Simply put the computer models have not withstood scrutiny

Where is the inaccuracy and why hasn't the computer models been accurate? Is it the data or the theory itself? Obviously the debate is not over and neither is the science as settled as many would like us to believe.

As per fighting to be good stewards of the planet I am having trouble wrapping my head around that statement in which you would insinuate that is not the case. In the last 40 or 50 years the environmental movement is very strong from all sectors of our society (left, right, middle, young or old, black or white etc.) and great strides have been made. The country as a whole HAS been fighting and improving the conditions of the environment and polluters which disregard the public good are punished severely and rightfully so.
 
TomT
distinguished member(5299)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberpower member
 
12/10/2018 09:38AM
flopnfolds: "
AND there is consensus among scientists who study climate. Virtually all studies show that scientist believe man-made emissions are contributing to climate change.
"


I read in the Chicago Tribune yesterday that the true percentage of scientists who study climate believe this is 97%. Some politicians try to skew this number. This thread subject is taking those 97% at their word. To think some of these scientists are lying and being politically correct to save their jobs is just a dangerous opinion.



 
KarlBAndersen1
distinguished member(930)distinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished memberdistinguished member
 
12/10/2018 10:09AM
mastertangler: "Climate Change is real, now what?

They have spent the entirety of their time in convincing the peoples of the planet of an impending crisis and desiring power to solve the crisis. How interesting.......government creates a crisis and stands back awaiting society to grant them power over their lives ("please, save us"). "



Precisely.
 
      Print Top Bottom Previous Next
Listening Point - General Discussion Sponsor:
Visit Cook County