“climate emergency”

[Orangeburst]

And you’d be wrong again. Natural gas is our dominant source of power generation capability. And several of us have posted this fact multiple times already and I know you saw it.

View attachment 366151

TVA has already shut down a majority of the 59 coal-fired units it once operated, cutting the share of its power generated by burning coal from nearly two-thirds of TVA's generation in the 1980s to 17% of TVA's generation in fiscal 2019, Hopson said. TVA continues to operate nine coal-fired units.

They sure aint building new ones.

 

[OHvol40]

Hmmm I wonder why nobody is taking about all the masks that are winding up in the oceans? I guess the oceans don’t really have anything to do with the climate.

Somewhere Al Gore and Michael Moore are spooning each other to the thought of another “climate change” debacle.

You have weird fantasies man.

 

[NorthDallas40]

No I didn’t see it. See my edit to previous post ^

I simply don’t believe you. If you’re really as tuned in as you claim on our carbon emissions you would know this.

 

[GroverCleveland]

You’re in it friend. I invite you to look up how much cities like Miami are having to spend on infrastructure to prevent sunny day flooding. How many of your tax dollars is the DOD spending in preparation to move infrastructure away from coasts? Ask farmers that used to be east of the US continental dry line and are now west of it how they’ve been affected. It’s real for many people already.

Pretending that someone has to be a soothsayer for you to acknowledge the information put in front of your face is laughable.

The climate has been changing for billions of years. We just now reached the point where we have a lot of Chicken Littles screaming about how we are going to die in 12 years if we do not fork over complete control to people who are in it for nothing more than power and money. Sea levels rising because of glacier melt? Well duh! They have been melting for approximately 11,700 years before the first Chevy Surburban rolled off the production line, eventually providing Al Gore something to ride around in while telling us all the polar bears will be dead before too long.

From the items you mentioned, it appears you are parroting something you heard or read from someone who knows no more about it than you do. For example, the "continental dry line" can shift hundreds of miles within a day, and typically shifts east during the day and west at night. Farmers find themselves east or west of it all the time. Having spent 20+ years in agriculture as a farmer, ginner, warehouseman, grain buyer, chemical supply, etc, with a lot of family still operating significant operations, I happen to know just a bit about American agriculture.

 

[NorthDallas40]

TVA has already shut down a majority of the 59 coal-fired units it once operated, cutting the share of its power generated by burning coal from nearly two-thirds of TVA's generation in the 1980s to 17% of TVA's generation in fiscal 2019, Hopson said. TVA continues to operate nine coal-fired units.

They sure aint building new ones.

TVA is in a great position you guys are lucky. Large amounts of nuke and hydroelectric. I remember when I moved to Texas I was shocked at electricity costs. Then I learned I was just lucky on growing up with TVA. Just don’t let the screw it up.

 

[Orangeburst]

I was waiting for this.

 

[OHvol40]

I simply don’t believe you. If you’re really as tuned in as you claim on our carbon emissions you would know this.

I can have a real conversation where *gasp* I learn new information, have flexibility in my position, and I’m not so rigid that I practice willful ignorance. Can you?

 

[NorthDallas40]

We don’t have to worry about what’s left of our coal mining industry though. China and India will be happy to keep buying it and continue to burn it and generate power with it!

 

[NorthDallas40]

I can have a real conversation where *gasp* I learn new information, have flexibility in my position, and I’m not so rigid that I practice willful ignorance. Can you?

Sure. I just said I don’t believe you. I know you’ve been in this discussion before when I was also and I dropped graphs just like that one. Several of us have.

Our country is leading the way on reducing carbon emissions and we did it without that stupid ass Paris Accords which the largest polluters ignore anyway.

 

[Orangeburst]

We don’t have to worry about what’s left of our coal mining industry though. China and India will be happy to keep buying it and continue to burn it and generate power with it!

Only that side of the world will have worst climate change.

 

[GroverCleveland]

I like nukes. We should have pursued that course as France did.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I like nukes. We should have pursued that course as France did.

About the only damn decent decision the idiots have made in the last 100 years.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I was waiting for this.

?

 

[OHvol40]

The climate has been changing for billions of years. We just now reached the point where we have a lot of Chicken Littles screaming about how we are going to die in 12 years if we do not fork over complete control to people who are in it for nothing more than power and money. Sea levels rising because of glacier melt? Well duh! They have been melting for approximately 11,700 years before the first Chevy Surburban rolled off the production line, eventually providing Al Gore something to ride around in while telling us all the polar bears will be dead before too long.

From the items you mentioned, it appears you are parroting something you heard or read from someone who knows no more about it than you do. For example, the "continental dry line" can shift hundreds of miles within a day, and typically shifts east during the day and west at night. Farmers find themselves east or west of it all the time. Having spent 20+ years in agriculture as a farmer, ginner, warehouseman, grain buyer, chemical supply, etc, with a lot of family still operating significant operations, I happen to know just a bit about American agriculture.

Ok, so with your wealth of knowledge, has the annual average dry line shifted over the decades? (That’s rhetorical)

A North American Climate Boundary Has Shifted 140 Miles East Due to Global Warming

 

[OHvol40]

Sure. I just said I don’t believe you. I know you’ve been in this discussion before when I was also and I dropped graphs just like that one. Several of us have.

Our country is leading the way on reducing carbon emissions and we did it without that stupid ass Paris Accords which the largest polluters ignore anyway.

We definitely are not the biggest emissions offenders, that was 30-50 years ago.

 

[Orangeburst]

?

Grover's response to the post above yours. You just had a quicker trigger finger.lol..or faster internet

 

[NorthDallas40]

We definitely are not the biggest emissions offenders, that was 30-50 years ago.

Ok. Enough busting your balls on this one. But now that you’re reading here read some more. The stuff you are reading is GARBAGE. Take this official looking page.

Why is Natural Gas A Dirty Energy?

It implies that while natural gas seems clean when it burns it in fact is still dirty because methane is released into the atmosphere during extraction. So take a look at this picture showing the volumetric makeup of Natural Gas. And methane is burned off relatively quickly in the atmosphere compared to carbon dioxide so that’s a red herring too.

You are getting fed garbage. Natural gas IS clean energy. Period. The primary byproducts of combustion are, yes, carbon dioxide and water vapor. However it produces around half of the carbon dioxide emissions coal does. So at the same power generation capacity point if we replace coal with natural gas that alone cuts that emission source by around half. And there are no solids in the combustion byproducts either.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Grover's response to the post above yours. You just had a quicker trigger finger.lol..or faster internet

Ah

 

[OHvol40]

Ok. Enough busting your balls on this one. But now that you’re reading here read some more. The stuff you are reading is GARBAGE. Take this official looking page.

Why is Natural Gas A Dirty Energy?

It implies that while natural gas seems clean when it burns it in fact is still dirty because methane is released into the atmosphere during extraction. So take a look at this picture showing the volumetric makeup of Natural Gas. And methane is burned off relatively quickly in the atmosphere compared to carbon dioxide so that’s a red herring too.

You are getting fed garbage. Natural gas IS clean energy. Period. The primary byproducts of combustion are, yes, carbon dioxide and water vapor. However it produces around half of the carbon dioxide emissions coal does. So at the same power generation capacity point if we replace coal with natural gas that alone cuts that emission source by around half. And there are no solids in the combustion byproducts either.

View attachment 366161

I know natural gas is much cleaner, that’s why I said I’m a proponent of using it wherever possible and practical. Not sure what things you’re referring to that I’ve been reading, but I assure you that to get an advanced degree in medicine there is a lot of chemistry involved... which is exactly why I’m pro NG and anti coal.

 

[GroverCleveland]

Ok, so with your wealth of knowledge, has the annual average dry line shifted over the decades? (That’s rhetorical)

A North American Climate Boundary Has Shifted 140 Miles East Due to Global Warming

Geez. Here is what I find so exasperating with your religion. You claim a point about the "continental dry line" and when that is shot down, it becomes the "climate boundary" which has shifted, wait for it...

Wait for it...

...140 miles to the east according to folks who probably claim with the same unerring accuracy that the average world temperature will rise x.x degrees in 41 years and six months. Meanwhile, staring real time at the weather with satellites, reporting stations and all kinds of models, they missed the rain storms we were supposed to get yesterday by about six hours.

Holy cow! Hand the economy over to John Kerry, idiot extraordinaire!

You have intimated or implied that people who do not believe that humans, maybe particularly Americans, are destroying the planet by living in historical levels of wealth are sticking their heads in the sand. That any other explanation such as, oh I don't know, the thermostat on the thermonuclear fireball approximately 93 million miles away from us IS NOT THAT FREAKING PRECISE, let alone the vagaries of orbital and planetary axis shifts.

Hey man, you be you. I applaud you planting 150 trees or whatever. Feel good about saving your corner of Ohio! But when you're ready to put up some cash to back up your beliefs on some hard predictions, let me know. May be willing to wager on it, depending on the terms.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Sure, philosophically I agree there is no such thing as consensus science, but that is a semantics position in this case. The fact is, depending on how you word a poll, people in the relevant science fields will agree somewhere at between 90% and 98% clip that climate change is real and is caused or exasperated by man.

Let's say it is. The US already has the most restrictive emission standards on the planet, and your precious Paris accords put even more stringent requirements on us immediately... and the biggest offenders don't even have to start complying for another 5 years. You good with that?

 

[Grand Vol]

Mother Nature has not pushed current CO2 concentration to 420 ppm.

Neither have cattle...

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Mother Nature has not pushed current CO2 concentration to 420 ppm.

Man is responsible for all of that? What portion if not? How long if we cut our emissions to zero will it take for the earth to absorb our contribution? If we cut them by 50% how long will it take? If we cut ours by 50% and China keeps adding like the PA allow them to do... what is your stance there? Is America still the evil country you like to proclaim us as being?

 

[LouderVol]

Ok, so with your wealth of knowledge, has the annual average dry line shifted over the decades? (That’s rhetorical)

A North American Climate Boundary Has Shifted 140 Miles East Due to Global Warming

Where was this dry line 100 years before this guy established 100 has the longitude? Isnt moisture levels something we can review in soil samples due to particles distributed.

For this article to be a man made issue you would have to establish what is was before. Right now we have 2 or 3 data points? That's hardly science in my book.

It also probably suffers from some of the same issues we have seen with better instruments we get better data, but there is no way to adapt old data to the new standard. So we see a lot of differences without knowing where it comes from.

I also didnt see any information on what they are basing this on? Average rainfall would make the most sense to me. Or is it just the location of certain species. Again this could be things that change sans human interference. Maybe the aquifers, but demand would alter that and a lot of other clues they could be using.

 

[McDad]

Where was this dry line 100 years before this guy established 100 has the longitude? Isnt moisture levels something we can review in soil samples due to particles distributed.

For this article to be a man made issue you would have to establish what is was before. Right now we have 2 or 3 data points? That's hardly science in my book.

It also probably suffers from some of the same issues we have seen with better instruments we get better data, but there is no way to adapt old data to the new standard. So we see a lot of differences without knowing where it comes from.

I also didnt see any information on what they are basing this on? Average rainfall would make the most sense to me. Or is it just the location of certain species. Again this could be things that change sans human interference. Maybe the aquifers, but demand would alter that and a lot of other clues they could be using.

This type of "science" is one of the issues I have with climate scientists. There are disciplines of science which are exact. Those disciplines have two distinct characteristics (which we layman presume to be in all science). Reproducible and predictable. Structural loads are the same for the same specific materials with the same dimensions used in the same way. Engineers, architects, and assemblers make a living on these two characteristics. The same load limits are predictable by different people all across the globe; which also means it is reproducible. Math, Chemistry, some elements of Medicine, Astronomy, and other sciences share these attributes.

Climate science is not reproducible. And it certainly isn't predictable. It is observational. Observational science isn't bad science. It is just a different type of science. The challenge is extrapolating predictive outcomes based on the observational data. For something as complex and mutli faceted as climate, the amount of data points over eons of time are staggering. Add to this challenge, the Earth's land masses are moving thousands of miles, or changing within the land mass itself, over these eons. Furthermore, the use of computer modeling is an issue. Computers spit out what we tell them to spit out. I remember when BartW posted articles claiming the predictive validity of computer modeling. I'm sorry. It doesn't work that way. Computer models are run on the super bowl. They aren't always predictive. Is an nfl game less complex than climate?

Maybe one day climate science will be reproducible and predictive. But it isn't there, yet.