Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[EinSV]

Energy company AES has announced a new target of 70% renewables by 2030 (up from 50% by 2030) and is moving to bring more renewables (esp solar/storage) online quickly. US energy firm AES commits to 70% carbon reduction in climate scenario report

With the economics of solar and wind with storage becoming increasingly appealing hopefully we'll see more aggressive renewable adoption goals by energy producers and utilities.

 

[mspohr]

Energy company AES has announced a new target of 70% renewables by 2030 (up from 50% by 2030) and is moving to bring more renewables (esp solar/storage) online quickly. US energy firm AES commits to 70% carbon reduction in climate scenario report

With the economics of solar and wind with storage becoming increasingly appealing hopefully we'll see more aggressive renewable adoption goals by energy producers and utilities.

I think the economics will drive this from now on. Power companies can't ignore the cheaper cost of renewables.

 

[DragonWatch]

Started out about a month ago and reported on Venice, Italy and our environment centered tour; only to have a mega storm run us out of town and flood the city with five feet of water. Barcelona tour guides talked about rain the other day was the worst he had ever seen it in his fifty-nine years. Then he proccded to tell us it was just the weather correcting itself and should be okay in a year or two. One port we docked at two times; on the second visit, large sailing boats had been tossed ashore along with tons of debris. Then Paradise, California popped up on our radar. We stopped there in October 2017 to visit a couple my wife had gone to high school with back in the sixties. Back in the sixties, before I was ever to meet my wife, I helped my father plant five hundred trees along the bluff looking down at the feather river, if I recall correctly. He owned three acres there at the time.

This is what climate change looks like, for real. After the Paradise fire, my footprint just got a little bit smaller:-(

 

[nwdiver]

Don't piss off Smokey...

 

[rays427]

If it's just climate change why are there less fires now versus the past? It appears the total fires this year will be about 10 million acres. From 1926 to 1943 the range was 24 to 52 million acres per year. I assume as we worked hard to prevent the spread of fires that we also increased the fuel load. I would expect that although higher temperatures could be part of the problem it appears that there is more to it than just that.

So here is the data.
National Interagency Fire Center

 

[nwdiver]

If it's just climate change why are there less fires now versus the past? It appears the total fires this year will be about 10 million acres. From 1926 to 1943 the range was 24 to 52 million acres per year. I assume as we worked hard to prevent the spread of fires that we also increased the fuel load. I would expect that although higher temperatures could be part of the problem it appears that there is more to it than just that.

So here is the data.
National Interagency Fire Center

Hmmmm.... so you think it's accurate to compare a period where we allowed fires to burn and a period where we actively fight them? You think it's accurate to compare a period where the best tool we had was a shovel to make a 3 mile fire line in a week vs today when we can make a 3 mile fire line in 30 seconds?

We didn't have smoke jumpers, bucket helicopters and 747 tankers in 1940; Apples-Apples...

 

[nwdiver]

Wait... scratch that last post... I see my mistake now

Hmmmm.... so you think it's accurate to compare a period where we allowed fires to burn and a period where we actively fight them? You think it's accurate to compare a period where the best tool we had was a shovel to make a 3 mile fire line in a week vs today when we can make a 3 mile fire line in 30 seconds?

 

[ohmman]

From the abstract:

Which can more quickly displace fossil-fueled electricity generation—nuclear power or modern renewables? Contrary to a persistent myth based on erroneous methods, global data show that renewable electricity adds output and saves carbon faster than nuclear power does or ever has.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629618300598

 

[Chopr147]

It rained in NY today. CLIMATE CHANGE!!!

 

[nwdiver]

It rained in NY today. CLIMATE CHANGE!!!

WORDS!... they have definitions.

 

[S'toon]

<facepalm>
California fires partly due to environmentalists, says U.S. Interior chief | CBC News

 

[rays427]

Hmmmm.... so you think it's accurate to compare a period where we allowed fires to burn and a period where we actively fight them? You think it's accurate to compare a period where the best tool we had was a shovel to make a 3 mile fire line in a week vs today when we can make a 3 mile fire line in 30 seconds?

We didn't have smoke jumpers, bucket helicopters and 747 tankers in 1940; Apples-Apples...

What I think is that when we only had shovels fires swept through forests and kept them from being over grown. So when we started to actively try to prevent them from spreading we were very successful. However over time that procedure allowed the forest to get over grown which is now making them much harder to control. I also think higher temperatures and drought increase the size and spread of the fires. It's interesting to note that the size of the fires were at a maximum in the 1930's and 1940's during the time of the dust bowl and high temperatures in the US.

 

[nwdiver]

What I think is that when we only had shovels fires swept through forests and kept them from being over grown. So when we started to actively try to prevent them from spreading we were very successful. However over time that procedure allowed the forest to get over grown which is now making them much harder to control. I also think higher temperatures and drought increase the size and spread of the fires. It's interesting to note that the size of the fires were at a maximum in the 1930's and 1940's during the time of the dust bowl and high temperatures in the US.

California is significantly drier and warmer today than at any point in the last century.

 

[Chopr147]

Words do have definitions. Not looking for an argument but I disagree with many here on CC,GW or whatever it will be called next. I could go tit for tat on any Climate science results or data streams with a simple Google search. Any contrary studies will be called oil company hype.
But, I have lived long enough to see some of the same scientists who were hysterical about the ice age being imminent, now telling me the world will bake a cake at 350 degrees soon. And when the Global warming predictions did not materialize, changed the term to climate change which can mean anything you want it to.
I took advantage of solar credits in 2012 to save money on energy. Luck and good timing gave me a $45,000 system for $15,000.
I drive an S because I love the car. Though not a money saver on that decision.
I have always cared about the environment but not fooled by the boy crying wolf again.

 

[ohmman]

I could go tit for tat on any Climate science results or data streams with a simple Google search

Since jrad ran away (but still lurking as I see his voting), would you like to join me on doing actual science on climate data? I’ve got data sets in Tableau and we can validate or invalidate studies that you find suspect.

Drawing regression lines in Excel might get one a passing grade in 9th grade science, but I am interested in real analysis here.

Without doing the work, one really can’t claim to know better than those who have.

 

[Zythryn]

But, I have lived long enough to see some of the same scientists who were hysterical about the ice age being imminent, now telling me the world will bake a cake at 350 degrees soon.

Your exaggerations make it difficult to have actual discourse.

There were a couple of papers in the 70s which hypothesized that we were headed into the next ice age, in 1000 years or so. These articles had a very low level of certainty, and very little of the scientific community supported that idea.
None of the papers I saw had any "hysteria" in them, nor any suggestion of an ice age being "imminent".
Likewise, I highly doubt anyone is telling you that you will be baking a cake at 350 degrees, other than in an oven.

 

[JRP3]

But, I have lived long enough to see some of the same scientists who were hysterical about the ice age being imminent, now telling me the world will bake a cake at 350 degrees soon.

Inaccurate statements such as that prove you are really not capable of rational debate on the subject.

 

[nwdiver]

There were a couple of papers in the 70s which hypothesized that we were headed into the next ice age, in 1000 years or so. These articles had a very low level of certainty, and very little of the scientific community supported that idea.

Yep. And even those were based on the same mechanism as global warming. Radiative balance. I don't see how someone can agree with the radiative effects of SO2 but disagree about the radiative effects of CO2... unless they're trying to molest facts to fit their ideology. We fixed the SO2 problem with the clean air act. Time to fix the CO2 problem.

 

[nwdiver]

Words do have definitions. Not looking for an argument but I disagree with many here on CC,GW or whatever it will be called next. I could go tit for tat on any Climate science results or data streams with a simple Google search. Any contrary studies will be called oil company hype.
But, I have lived long enough to see some of the same scientists who were hysterical about the ice age being imminent, now telling me the world will bake a cake at 350 degrees soon. And when the Global warming predictions did not materialize, changed the term to climate change which can mean anything you want it to.
I took advantage of solar credits in 2012 to save money on energy. Luck and good timing gave me a $45,000 system for $15,000.
I drive an S because I love the car. Though not a money saver on that decision.
I have always cared about the environment but not fooled by the boy crying wolf again.

Which fact do you think is not true?

1) CO2 levels have risen >40% since humanities fossil fuel addiction started
2) The burning of Fossil Fuels has emitted more than twice as much CO2 as would be required for that rise
3) Doubling CO2 will cause a rise in global average temperature of >3C​

The radiative properties of CO2 have been known and tested for >100 years... How can all 3 be true but Global Warming false?

There have been complaints about this thread spiraling into nonsense. So please respond here.

 

[Zythryn]

Yep. And even those were based on the same mechanism as global warming. Radiative balance. I don't see how someone can agree with the radiative effects of SO2 but disagree about the radiative effects of CO2... unless they're trying to molest facts to fit their ideology. We fixed the SO2 problem with the clean air act. Time to fix the CO2 problem.

The one in National Geographic actually brought in the orbit of the earth as well. It is quite interesting, as our orbit is at a stage of slight cooling, with more cooling in the future.
Again though, this wasn’t supposed to reach “ice age” levels for thousands of years.