Global Warming

tehmackdaddy

post tenebras lux
Joined
Nov 7, 2006
Messages
19,200
Reaction score
1,989
Points
113
Location
IN the world, but not OF the world
"Weather warning: Earth could be hit by MINI ICE-AGE as Sun ‘hibernates’"
By nytimespost -February 3, 20200


Sunspot activity on the surface of the Sun follows a well-known but little understood 11 year cycle. Activity rises and falls creating the so-called solar maximum and then solar minimum. During a solar maximum, the Sun is more powerful and is littered with sunspots.

Conversely when the Sun enters a solar minimum – which it did about two years ago – energy from our host star begins to lessen.

However, one expert has warned that the Sun will enter a period of “hibernation” this year, in what as known as a Grand Solar Minimum (GSM).

Prof Valentina Zharkova, from the department of mathematics, physics and electrical engineering at Northumbria University, warned this could cause global temperatures to drop by one degrees Celsius.

While that sounds like an insignificant drop, it could have major ramifications for the planet, including a slow down in agricultural production.

The expert added the Sun’s hibernation period could last for three decades, which will lead to wetter and colder summers.

Prof Zharkova told The Sun: “The Sun is approaching a hibernation period.

“Less sunspots will be formed on the solar surface and thus less energy and radiation will be emitted towards the planets and the Earth.”

“The reduction in temperature will result in cold weathers on Earth, wet and cold summers, cold and wet winters.”

“We will possibly get big frosts as is happening now in Canada where they see [temperatures] of -50C.

“During this period, very few sunspots appeared on the surface of the Sun, and the overall brightness of the Sun decreased slightly.

“Already in the midst of a colder-than-average period called the Little Ice Age, Europe and North America went into a deep freeze: alpine glaciers extended over valley farmland; sea ice crept south from the Arctic; and the famous canals in the Netherlands froze regularly—an event that is rare today.”

During this period, temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere on land and in the winter were reportedly 1.3C lower than today leading to shorter seasons and ultimately food shortages in what NASA described as a “little Ice Age”.

Prof Zharkova said: “We can only hope that the mini ice age will not be as severe as it was during the Maunder Minimum.

“This would dramatically affect food harvests in middle latitudes, because the vegetables and fruits will not have enough time for harvesting.

“So it could lead to a food deficit for people and animals, as we seen in the past couple of years when the snow in Spain and Greece in April and May demolished they veggie fields, and the UK had a deficit of broccoli, and other fruits and veggies.”

However, other experts disagree with Prof Zharkova’s theory, stating any cooling effect will be “vastly offset” by climate change.

Solar scientist Mathew Owens said: “Thus there will probably be no detectable effect on global climate.”

Link
:coffee:
 

Baron Samedi

Russian Bot 762X54R
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
28,979
Reaction score
2,305
Points
113
Age
52
Location
Framingham
Whether or not an individual believes whether she has been propped up as a poster child (I do) or not, I think she was a solid strategy for the green left because a lot of folks in my world buy her narrative hook, line and sinker.

For instance, my brother-in-law, who is a late-blooming liberal spear carrier has gone on several rants about how mean and disgusting Trump has been to her.......being a poor-little 12 year-old autistic kid who is just trying to save the Planet and all.

I have been listening to him go off on all the popular liberal story lines for a while now and have bit my tongue to keep the peace at the dinner table while fighting the urge to tell him how fucking gullible he actually is. The sad part is that he is otherwise fairly intelligent, but is incredibly superficial when it comes to politics. Shit like that is happening all across the country, I'd bet. People either stewing in silence or waging battles that they know will create divisions.

I've blown up a couple of relationships with friends over all this stuff but have been resisting with my wife's side of the family because it's going to get ugly fast and have major ramifications.

I know that I can't hold back for much longer and will be on an island the second it happens because they seems completely deluded by every heavily biased media report they hear, which is, of course, 95% liberal.

In fact, none of them even believe that to be the case. It's amazing.

They don't even know what's being fed to them on a daily basis. They think Fox is the only news outlet in the country that is biased and all the others are completely fair and legit.

First, let me say that politics over family and friends is not a good recipe. Just smile knowingly. You cannot win arguments with the left, because they do not respond to logic or reason, they are grounded in feelings and faith, and to impune their beliefs is to insult them personally, on a deep, emotional level. To debate leftist politics is no different than debating another person's religion. It's the same thing, and will get the same reaction and results...probably more violent from a leftist, because at least religion generally teaches forebearance and patience. I urge you to let your leftist friends be the suckers that they are and be happy in their ignorance.


OK, now that we have that out of the way...

The vast, vast, vast majority of people have no CPU in their head when it comes to their news or information stream. They do not process the information they receive, they do not question it's veracity, and they certainly don't consider whether they are being manipulated. They simply watch, listen, download, and output. No more, no less. They are basically human thumb drives...they download, carry information, and then try to upload it into you, like malware. There is no questioning or processing of that information....and there is tremendous resistance to doing it because their "opinion", which they believe is theirs, is validated by being in lots of company, with all the other human thumb drives approving and appreciating their opinion which they, of course, share together.

Then you come along and suggest that their opinion and information is imperfect and flawed, which they process as they, themselves being imperfect and flawed.

So, that's what's going on. Trust me....the dialogue at the leftist dinner is identical at every table, if the topic is the same. Almost word for word.

That's why the NPC meme is so viral, and why they hate it so much. You can choose any topic you like and have 100 discussions with 100 leftists, and every discussion will be plug and play, repeated almost word for word, without individual distinction. They take comfort in agreeing with each other, because they validate one another's intelligence and sensitivity.

You disturb that comfort zone, and you are viewed as the wolf coming to attack their herd. There's no reason in it....because you are a danger.

They are human thumb drives, trying to upload their malware in your computer in your head. They don't have CPU's, they only have a feelings processor. That's the way you should treat them...with sympathy and respect...you can't make them think, reason, and process, you can only make them angry and hurt.

Don't do that. The ones that actually have CPU's will come to you, and you will recognize it when you see it. The rest you can't change.
 

O_P_T

Why Be Normal
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
21,755
Reaction score
2,532
Points
113
Age
61
Location
Windsor, CT
OK, with the wildfires raging in the west, it is common to hear claims that they are "caused by climate change".

Well, here's a paper from Berkely of all places that was written in 2007.

Here's the abstract.

Abstract
In the majority of US political settings wildland fire is still discussed as a negative force. Lacking from current wildfire discussions are estimates
of the spatial extent of fire and their resultant emissions before the influences of Euro-American settlement and this is the focus of this work. We
summarize the literature on fire history (fire rotation and fire return intervals) and past Native American burning practices to estimate past fire
occurrence by vegetation type. Once past fire intervals were established they were divided into the area of each corresponding vegetation type to
arrive at estimates of area burned annually. Finally, the First Order Fire Effects Model was used to estimate emissions. Approximately 1.8 million
ha burned annually in California prehistorically (pre 1800). Our estimate of prehistoric annual area burned in California is 88% of the total annual
wildfire area in the entire US during a decade (1994–2004) characterized as ‘‘extreme’’ regarding wildfires.
The idea that US wildfire area of
approximately two million ha annually is extreme is certainly a 20th or 21st century perspective.
Skies were likely smoky much of the summer and
fall in California during the prehistoric period. Increasing the spatial extent of fire in California is an important management objective. The best
methods to significantly increase the area burned is to increase the use of wildland fire use (WFU) and appropriate management response (AMR)
suppression fire in remote areas. Political support for increased use of WFU and AMR needs to occur at local, state, and federal levels because
increasing the spatial scale of fire will increase smoke and inevitability, a few WFU or AMR fires will escape their predefined boundaries

So prior to 1800, long before "global warming" the area burned, just in California, was 88% of the entire US in the "global warming era".

The idea that US wildfire area of approximately two million ha annually is extreme is certainly a 20th or 21st century perspective.

So, can we put to bed the suggestion that the fires we see today are "caused by climate change"?

Well of course not. One must only follow the science, if the science fits the narrative.
 

tehmackdaddy

post tenebras lux
Joined
Nov 7, 2006
Messages
19,200
Reaction score
1,989
Points
113
Location
IN the world, but not OF the world
OK, with the wildfires raging in the west, it is common to hear claims that they are "caused by climate change".

Well, here's a paper from Berkely of all places that was written in 2007.

Here's the abstract.

Abstract
In the majority of US political settings wildland fire is still discussed as a negative force. Lacking from current wildfire discussions are estimates
of the spatial extent of fire and their resultant emissions before the influences of Euro-American settlement and this is the focus of this work. We
summarize the literature on fire history (fire rotation and fire return intervals) and past Native American burning practices to estimate past fire
occurrence by vegetation type. Once past fire intervals were established they were divided into the area of each corresponding vegetation type to
arrive at estimates of area burned annually. Finally, the First Order Fire Effects Model was used to estimate emissions. Approximately 1.8 million
ha burned annually in California prehistorically (pre 1800). Our estimate of prehistoric annual area burned in California is 88% of the total annual
wildfire area in the entire US during a decade (1994–2004) characterized as ‘‘extreme’’ regarding wildfires.
The idea that US wildfire area of
approximately two million ha annually is extreme is certainly a 20th or 21st century perspective.
Skies were likely smoky much of the summer and
fall in California during the prehistoric period. Increasing the spatial extent of fire in California is an important management objective. The best
methods to significantly increase the area burned is to increase the use of wildland fire use (WFU) and appropriate management response (AMR)
suppression fire in remote areas. Political support for increased use of WFU and AMR needs to occur at local, state, and federal levels because
increasing the spatial scale of fire will increase smoke and inevitability, a few WFU or AMR fires will escape their predefined boundaries

So prior to 1800, long before "global warming" the area burned, just in California, was 88% of the entire US in the "global warming era".

The idea that US wildfire area of approximately two million ha annually is extreme is certainly a 20th or 21st century perspective.

So, can we put to bed the suggestion that the fires we see today are "caused by climate change"?

Well of course not. One must only follow the science, if the science fits the narrative.

Don't forget the lack of adequate controlled burns over the course what I think I read was the last decade or two. Even Gavin Newsom admitted this.

I would provide links, but am currently too tired.
 

O_P_T

Why Be Normal
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
21,755
Reaction score
2,532
Points
113
Age
61
Location
Windsor, CT
Don't forget the lack of adequate controlled burns over the course what I think I read was the last decade or two. Even Gavin Newsom admitted this.

I would provide links, but am currently too tired.

Or countless people moving into the forests.

Yeah, those certainly have had an impact.

But even the most clueless wonders must acknowledge that the historical burn record far exceeds the present one, assuming they are open to listening to what the "science" actually says.

I'm not holding my breath.
 

AnOldTroll

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Messages
4,704
Reaction score
1,160
Points
113
Location
America's Finest City
Having 3 states on fire at the same time.. at this particular juncture..

Could there possibly be another reason?

Not scientific.

Just causes me pause and something I consider, given the other stuff going on out here and the nation, :coffee:
 

Dwight Schrute

Deplorable #63174288
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
41,099
Reaction score
4,443
Points
113
Age
53
Location
America?s Hometown
Having 3 states on fire at the same time.. at this particular juncture..

Could there possibly be another reason?

Not scientific.

Just causes me pause and something I consider, given the other stuff going on out here and the nation, :coffee:

Agree.

Ripe conditions.

Distractions everywhere you look.

Opportunity.
 

O_P_T

Why Be Normal
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
21,755
Reaction score
2,532
Points
113
Age
61
Location
Windsor, CT
Having 3 states on fire at the same time.. at this particular juncture..

Could there possibly be another reason?

Not scientific.

Just causes me pause and something I consider, given the other stuff going on out here and the nation, :coffee:

If you're suggesting that having fires in three States suggests "climate change" is responsible, then the question would be, is this unprecedented.

Here's a quote from the paper I previously cited.

Skies were likely smoky in the summer and fall in California before fire suppression. An eye-witness account of smoke in northern California forests (C.H. Merriam 1898, quoted in Morford, 1993) reported ‘‘Of the hundreds of persons who visit the Pacific slope in California every summer to see the mountains, few see more than the immediate foreground and a haze of smoke which even the strongest glass is unable to penetrate.’’ C.H. Merriam traveled extensively in California and was Chief, Division of Biological Survey for the US.

Why would this be limited to California?

Then there's this article

Oregon’s historic wildfires: unusual but not unprecedented

He likens it to the recent awakening around the likelihood of a Cascadia subduction zone earthquake. “We get lulled into this sense that it doesn’t happen here. It’s a California problem. But it does happen here, with low frequency,” he said.

Dan Gavin is a geographer at the University of Oregon who studies the history and pattern of fires in wet forest types west of the Cascade Range. He says the best evidence of pre-European, west-side megafires comes from core samples of remaining old-growth trees in protected areas and tree-ring studies in stumps from 1980s clearcuts. Coupled with sediment studies, they show that big fires have been a constant presence on the landscape for at least 11,000 years, leaving uniformly aged stands of Douglas-fir across Western Oregon and Washington at intervals of 100 to 250 years.
 

BostonTim

IIWII
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
33,793
Reaction score
5,179
Points
113
Age
73
Oregon’s historic wildfires: unusual but not unprecedented

Well. Follow the Science: With the now accepted science of Global Warning, all Bad things are not only precedented, but they are clearly Trump's fault.

Cheers. :wave:
 

BostonTim

IIWII
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Messages
33,793
Reaction score
5,179
Points
113
Age
73
Global warming induced disasters -Trump's fault: Hurricanes, Eathquakes, landslides, forest fires, polar ice cap melt, pissed off polar Bears, tornadoes, riots, train wrecks, 40 car pileups, hijackings, terrorist attacks, systemic Racism, Systemic sexism, systemic Jingoism, drive-by shootings, pandemics and even Global warming (to name a few).
 

tehmackdaddy

post tenebras lux
Joined
Nov 7, 2006
Messages
19,200
Reaction score
1,989
Points
113
Location
IN the world, but not OF the world
I know facts don't matter, but the increase in shale drilling has not only helped make us energy independent, but we have reduced emissions more than any other industrialized nation as power plants switch from coal to natural gas.

The U.S. is at pre-2009 carbon emission levels.

Yet Trump is going to make climate change worse and the Harris/Biden ticket will save the climate apocalypse coming in about 10 years.
 

Dwight Schrute

Deplorable #63174288
Joined
Nov 15, 2007
Messages
41,099
Reaction score
4,443
Points
113
Age
53
Location
America?s Hometown
Yet another example of where Trump struggles to get his message out.

He needs a full bullet point list, single sentence, to be able to run down all the accomplishments. As soon as SJF opens a door, hammer him with the actual facts.
 

O_P_T

Why Be Normal
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
21,755
Reaction score
2,532
Points
113
Age
61
Location
Windsor, CT
OK, let's see if the new forum and posting videos works.

 

shecolt

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 27, 2013
Messages
540
Reaction score
373
Points
63
I'm not posting in this thread to create any turmoil. I merely have a question that I am posting out of ignorance because I don't understand the Green New Deal or Biden's version of that deal or even how the two may differ.

Specifically, I am asking about propane. My husband and I were planning on converting from electric heat to propane. Now, I'm wondering if that is a good idea. Will propane be something that will rapidly increase in price or even be eliminated under the Green New Deal or is it something that doesn't fit into the category of being a danger in regards to climate change?
 

Big/Sky/Fly

We're All In This Psyop Together...
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
41,578
Reaction score
6,861
Points
113
Location
Moonover, Montana
I'm not posting in this thread to create any turmoil. I merely have a question that I am posting out of ignorance because I don't understand the Green New Deal or Biden's version of that deal or even how the two may differ.

Specifically, I am asking about propane. My husband and I were planning on converting from electric heat to propane. Now, I'm wondering if that is a good idea. Will propane be something that will rapidly increase in price or even be eliminated under the Green New Deal or is it something that doesn't fit into the category of being a danger in regards to climate change?
This is a good question.

Most likely is the answer. Look up Agenda 21/Agenda 30. The UN has info on what you're searching for. I'll do more research either way.
 

aloyouis

at least generally aware
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
5,493
Reaction score
602
Points
113
Location
Michigan
I'm not posting in this thread to create any turmoil. I merely have a question that I am posting out of ignorance because I don't understand the Green New Deal or Biden's version of that deal or even how the two may differ.

Specifically, I am asking about propane. My husband and I were planning on converting from electric heat to propane. Now, I'm wondering if that is a good idea. Will propane be something that will rapidly increase in price or even be eliminated under the Green New Deal or is it something that doesn't fit into the category of being a danger in regards to climate change?
This really is a good question given the impending Harris administration. Unfortunately, being on the grid might be more dangerous than paying higher propane costs in the future. There is a reason why the left is pushing a green/electric future. They can control the electrical grid.

Can you keep both systems in play?
 

foobahl

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
3,153
Reaction score
569
Points
113
Location
the only Henniker on earth
I know how carbon credits work. Why are there carbon credits? It is just free money for the government and politicians again without actually producing or reducing for that matter anything. I was reading a story about Al Gore buying credits so he could continue to make his home observable from outer space. He is one of the loudest voices on climate change. Does his throwing money at this do anything to help the climate? No. What message does that send to me? I think anyone can figure that out.
 

Big/Sky/Fly

We're All In This Psyop Together...
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
41,578
Reaction score
6,861
Points
113
Location
Moonover, Montana
I know how carbon credits work. Why are there carbon credits? It is just free money for the government and politicians again without actually producing or reducing for that matter anything. I was reading a story about Al Gore buying credits so he could continue to make his home observable from outer space. He is one of the loudest voices on climate change. Does his throwing money at this do anything to help the climate? No. What message does that send to me? I think anyone can figure that out.
He started a hedge fund based off of carbon credits. The ironic thing is, his family used to own (they still might actually) Occidental Petroleum. Not joking. He is the epitome of a hypocrite.
 

O_P_T

Why Be Normal
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
21,755
Reaction score
2,532
Points
113
Age
61
Location
Windsor, CT
I'm not posting in this thread to create any turmoil. I merely have a question that I am posting out of ignorance because I don't understand the Green New Deal or Biden's version of that deal or even how the two may differ.

Specifically, I am asking about propane. My husband and I were planning on converting from electric heat to propane. Now, I'm wondering if that is a good idea. Will propane be something that will rapidly increase in price or even be eliminated under the Green New Deal or is it something that doesn't fit into the category of being a danger in regards to climate change?

I'll get to the discussion of the Green Nude Eel, in a moment, but first a thought about your heating system.

I assume that your present electric heat is baseboard and the propane system would be forced hot air.

Correct?

If yes, then why not simply leave the electric system in place, including the thermostat(s)?

You could disable it by opening the breakers in your fuse box, assuming they are on a dedicated circuit.

Alternatively, if your existing thermostat(s) have an "off" switch, disable it that way, or set the temperature so low that it will never come on.

That way, if you need to switch back in the future, everything is there to be used.

Now as far at the Green Nude Eel, I don't know what Biden has proposed, or if it would even be implemented, but if it's anything close to AOC's plan, you might be better off getting propane, because electricity will be in short supply.

Just look what happened in California this past summer with their energy crisis.

Friday and Saturday’s rolling blackouts, or “Stage 3 Electrical Emergencies” in CAISO parlance, forced utilities to cut off power to hundreds of thousands of customers between the hours of 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. Those are the hours when solar generation drops to zero, leaving CAISO with a “net peak” that comes one to two hours after its peak demand hour on the system.

Why more solar can't help solve California's "net peak" problem​

CAISO’s peak demand levels over the weekend were lower than its historical highest peaks in 2006 and 2017. But “the operational challenge that we face now is more around that net peak event,” Berberich said, which includes accounting for increasing demand from rooftop solar-equipped customers as their own self-supplied solar power dissipates. “That solar resource is fading fast, and we have to ramp up other resources quickly to meet that net peak event.”

California has also lost a good deal of the generation capacity that it had in years past, Berberich noted. “In 2006, we had a lot more capacity on the system,” including the now-closed San Onofre nuclear power plant and thousands of megawatts of natural-gas plants that have since closed. California is set to close even more gas-fired power plants in the coming years, including several coastal plants targeted for retirement to reduce their harmful effects on marine ecosystems.


Wade Schauer, Americas research director at Wood Mackenzie Power & Renewables, noted that California has shut down about 5 gigawatts of dispatchable generation since 2018, while it has only added about 2,200 megawatts of “non-intermittent” generation since then.

California “just hasn’t done enough to keep resource adequacy where it should be, and the reserve margins have gotten tighter more quickly,” Schauer said. The chart below from WoodMac indicates how California’s total generation capacity has fallen below both gross peak and net peak needs, leaving a gap that must be made up from imports from other states.

Many of those states have retired their own generating capacity in recent years and are experiencing the same heat wave, so they have been unable to provide CAISO the level of additional supply it needs, Schauer added.

Who knew? Solar doesn't work at night. :coffee:

But there's hope.

Even California has learned what Scotty could have told them.


They decided to "postpone" for at least three years closing some gas fired power plants.

California’s desire to phase out fossil fuels is apparently bigger than its ability to do so.

Plans to shut down outdated gas-fired power generators this year in Huntington Beach, Long Beach, Redondo Beach and Oxnard are being postponed, with the state Water Resources Control Board voting 4-0 on Tuesday, Sept. 1, to endorse the move.

It’s the final approval needed, with shutdowns to be delayed as long as three years beyond the original closure date of Dec. 31, 2020.

The California Public Utilities Commission called for the move last year after determining that closing the plants as scheduled could leave customers vulnerable to power outages during evening hours, when electricity use is high and the availability of solar and wind energy is low.

So if even they have recognized that reality does exist outside their fevered dreams, it will happen elsewhere as well.
 

O_P_T

Why Be Normal
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Messages
21,755
Reaction score
2,532
Points
113
Age
61
Location
Windsor, CT
This really is a good question given the impending Harris administration. Unfortunately, being on the grid might be more dangerous than paying higher propane costs in the future. There is a reason why the left is pushing a green/electric future. They can control the electrical grid.

Can you keep both systems in play?

"They" can control just about any energy source.

High tension power lines, gas pipelines, oil pipelines, tanker trucks on the highway, tanker cars on rail roads, all of these are subject to regulation, restriction, and control at the Federal and State level.
 
Top