Can't fix stupid

[Neil_V]

Forum Sponsor

Are you suggesting that natural gas isn't a source of CO2 emissions?

Are you suggesting I'm lacking intellect? Of course NG emits CO2. And what exactly is CO2? A naturally occurring atmospheric TRACE gas which has, loosely at best, been linked to a POSSIBLE warming tread. Last time I checked it doesnt peel paint or leave toxic deposits in soil, water, air.....








... I was suggesting you keep your arguments RELEVANT

 

[Brian P]

Let's see, electric cars & electric heating. No more coal plants.... Where are we going to get all this juice? Some people have no brain

Go around the countryside and look at all the "Health studies before wind turbines" signs. (which is all BS, but that's another matter).

The electricity needs to come from somewhere. Select the type of powerplant for your backyard: Nuclear, coal, hydroelectric (your property gets flooded), natural gas (produced by fracking underneath your property), or wind, or solar, and the latter two will have to come with some sort of energy storage on a gargantuan scale. But I'd still rather have wind or solar than any of the alternatives.

A shift away from fossil fuels is inevitable. Might as well be prepared for it.

A lot of home heating and cooling loads can be reduced by intelligent design. This has to come via changes in the building code. Some has already been done. More is needed.

Electric heating via traditional (but cheap to install) resistance heating elements is insanity. Electric heating via heat pump with a ground-source thermal reservoir (this is what they are calling "geothermal") works VERY well and is cheaper to operate than any other heating/cooling source today BUT it's very expensive to retrofit. It makes sense to build it into the house from day one. But because it costs more compared to doing it the cheap way (resistance heating) it requires changes in the building code.

District heating as mentioned above works in Denmark because the generating station is usually right in the town. (I'm from there.) Tell that to the people who opposed the Oakville natural gas generating station and the Fiberals who went along with cancelling it for political votes. For district heating to work on a large scale, EVERY thermal generating station needs to be local to the community it serves, preferably right in the community it serves. And the network of pipes have to be built in when the infrastructure for the town is built. It's very expensive to retrofit afterwards.

In Denmark I don't think there is any place that is out of sight of wind turbines, and the bigger towns have a local power plant that generates electricity and operates the district heating system. The NIMBYs here would have a fit. The climate is pretty moderate, and most private houses don't have air conditioning (don't need it).

I am quite sure that 15 years from now, there will be EV quick-charging stations everywhere and no one will give a second thought about using an EV as their daily-driver vehicle. We are not there yet and one of the things holding me back from buying a Chevrolet Bolt as my next commuter vehicle is the absence of SAE Combo quick-charging stations with public access in Ontario. If the car becomes available (production start this Oct-Nov) and SAE Combo quick-charging stations get installed at the OnRoute service centers across Ontario before my current commuter kicks the bucket, then I'm in.

 

[griff2]

Are you suggesting I'm lacking intellect? Of course NG emits CO2. And what exactly is CO2? A naturally occurring atmospheric TRACE gas which has, loosely at best, been linked to a POSSIBLE warming tread. Last time I checked it doesnt peel paint or leave toxic deposits in soil, water, air.....

... I was suggesting you keep your arguments RELEVANT

Ok. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin.../CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html#.Vz4V6_krKCg

​

Figure 1. How Does CO2 Compare To Other Climate Drivers?

Carbon dioxide (CO2), more than any other climate driver, has contributed the most to climate change between 1750 and 2005.[4]​

 

[Neil_V]

Ok. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin.../CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html#.Vz4V6_krKCg

​

Figure 1. How Does CO2 Compare To Other Climate Drivers?

Carbon dioxide (CO2), more than any other climate driver, has contributed the most to climate change between 1750 and 2005.[4]​

Oh I love pretty graphs!! Sold! Forget all the data sets and endless piles of reports and opinion I've sifted through over the past 10 years.


... man; wish I'd seen that graph earlier

 

[Neil_V]

Sorry.. definitely being a tad facetious, but I will refer you back to the previous page where I talked about what carbon reduction policy means economically vs actual benefit, and why these sorts of policies are beyond reasonable.

 

[Snobike Mike]

Sorry.. definitely being a tad facetious, but I will refer you back to the previous page where I talked about what carbon reduction policy means economically vs actual benefit, and why these sorts of policies are beyond reasonable.

Indeed. None of these policies are reasonable at all, and if you look behind the curtain it's ultimately about taxation and control.

 

[Neil_V]

Indeed. None of these policies are reasonable at all, and if you look behind the curtain it's ultimately about taxation and control.

problem;reaction;solution?

Possibly.. No problem bigger than the end of humanity. Question is, are the predictive models reliable? emphasis on predictive... Empirical data seems to suggest otherwise.... Paleoclimate proxy data is quite interesting if you include ALL the proxies, which for the record, the IPCC does not... interestingly, shouldn't Al Gore's bay area home be under water by now? I thought these models were super accurate

 

[griff2]

Sorry.. definitely being a tad facetious, but I will refer you back to the previous page where I talked about what carbon reduction policy means economically vs actual benefit, and why these sorts of policies are beyond reasonable.

That depends on what you define as cost vs benefit. If global warming is real, and if the ice caps are melting because of human-caused changes to the global climate, what value does one put on the human cost of rising oceans, displaced island nations, the inundation of low-lying coastal cities like New Orleans, and accelerated continental climatic shift that is bringing subtropical diseases and pestilence northwards? What is a reasonable cost to forestall this or at least slow it down?

So far the predictive models have been shown as predicting the trend accurately enough. The main dispute is the predictive rate of change.

 

[Blackfin]

Same arguments once said for things like sewage treatment? Emissions controls on cars? Scrubbers on industrial smoke stacks?

So just do nothing because it will cost too much ...

Yes. Ontarians being forced to sacrifice their economic vitality in the name of reducing our 0.24%-fossil-fueled contribution to global GHG emissions by a few percentage points is too high a cost to pay. Unless the big-players do something drastic we will be economic martyrs.

In 2013, China emitted 63x more CO2 than all of Canada, about 274x more than Ontario did and about 422x what Ontario emitted due to burning fossil fuels. You tell me if Ontario sacrificing its economy is worth it if, when we're dead and gone as an industrialized society, GHG emissions would drop from 36Gt to 36Gt.

 

[griff2]

Yes. Ontarians being forced to sacrifice their economic vitality in the name of reducing our 0.24%-fossil-fueled contribution to global GHG emissions by a few percentage points is too high a cost to pay. Unless the big-players do something drastic we will be economic martyrs.

In 2013, China emitted 63x more CO2 than all of Canada, about 274x more than Ontario did and about 422x what Ontario emitted due to burning fossil fuels. You tell me if Ontario sacrificing its economy is worth it if, when we're dead and gone as an industrialized society, GHG emissions would drop from 36Gt to 36Gt.

Ok, I guess nobody should do anything. Just keep contributing to the downward death spiral until the other guy cleans up his act. Mutually-assured destruction.

 

[fastar1]

Yes. Ontarians being forced to sacrifice their economic vitality in the name of reducing our 0.24%-fossil-fueled contribution to global GHG emissions by a few percentage points is too high a cost to pay. Unless the big-players do something drastic we will be economic martyrs.

In 2013, China emitted 63x more CO2 than all of Canada, about 274x more than Ontario did and about 422x what Ontario emitted due to burning fossil fuels. You tell me if Ontario sacrificing its economy is worth it if, when we're dead and gone as an industrialized society, GHG emissions would drop from 36Gt to 36Gt.

So you'd support international climate accords that require proportional emissions cuts from all nations?

 

[Neil_V]

That depends on what you define as cost vs benefit. If global warming is real, and if the ice caps are melting because of human-caused changes to the global climate, what value does one put on the human cost of rising oceans, displaced island nations, the inundation of low-lying coastal cities like New Orleans, and accelerated continental climatic shift that is bringing subtropical diseases and pestilence northwards? What is a reasonable cost to forestall this or at least slow it down?

So far the predictive models have been shown as predicting the trend accurately enough. The main dispute is the predictive rate of change.

Ok, I guess nobody should do anything. Just keep contributing to the downward death spiral until the other guy cleans up his act. Mutually-assured destruction.

How do you define "accurately enough" 90+% have overstated warming. This despite the fact that CO2 levels have increased exactly as predicted .. So I would assert the main dispute is more accurately defined by asking what effect CO2 actually has on said rate of change.

I could spend all night trying to convince you but to be honest I've had this argument way to many times, and you're using enough buzz words and terms for me to recognize the efforts would be wasted; but maybe 4 Canadian scientist testifying in front of our Senate may convince you to at least dig deeper than a google search for the aforementioned catch phrases; or to look beyond the politically influenced reports put forward by the IPCC.... or maybe you respond with angry rhetoric as the vice-chair of this committee saw fit. Either way, you should watch. It was quite the interesting discussion. Video is old (2011), but it's the kind of stuff actually being discussed by scientist and suppressed by media and government alike

[video=youtube;oMmZF8gB7Gs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMmZF8gB7Gs[/video]

 

[nobbie48]

If we all are forced to electric heat for our homes and electric vehicles we will be tied to one source of energy.

Look at what the ******** are doing to us when they have competition. Without alternates we will be plucked like pigeons.

BTW we have a few EV's for people but how about the transport trucks?

 

[Slim Jim]

This has nothing to do with clean air, reducing our carbon foot print, this has everything to do with the astronomical hydro rates in Ontario, with no end in sight on rate hikes. They want to monopolize the industry making the majority of people going back to electric heating so they can rob the people even more. The nuclear plants required to do this is unattainable. It's simply a stupid idea, from a stupid party, and it really makes them look laughable more then ever.

 

[Blackfin]

So you'd support international climate accords that require proportional emissions cuts from all nations?

I'd want to see test-balloon-accords floated where the "big" absolute polluters -- those allegedly damaging the environment the most -- commit and actually make substantive cuts. Later, after, say, 5 or 10 years, we'd have empirical evidence from these countries as to how the cuts:

a) are affecting the climate and CO2 concentrations, and
b) affected the economies of these nations, and
c) what technologies emerged within (or without) those nations to cope with the shift from a "carbon economy."

I don't want to see accords that will cause severe and possibly irreparable damage to minimally polluting countries, states and provinces and I certainly don't want to see leaders and state and provincial levels taking it upon themselves to "save the world" when their jurisdictions are contributing mere fractions of a percent of GHGs.

 

[Snobike Mike]

Ok, I guess nobody should do anything. Just keep contributing to the downward death spiral until the other guy cleans up his act. Mutually-assured destruction.

Conversely, the (you?) progressives just want to do anything, regardless of cost or effectiveness just to be "politically correct".

Thanks but the "settled science" of MM "climate change" is a the biggest bunch of horse manure mankind has fabricated in the past 100 years all in the name of increase taxation and government control.

 

[griff2]

Conversely, the (you?) progressives just want to do anything, regardless of cost or effectiveness just to be "politically correct".

Thanks but the "settled science" of MM "climate change" is a the biggest bunch of horse manure mankind has fabricated in the past 100 years all in the name of increase taxation and government control.

So say the nay-sayers, who are apparently a very small minority (3% ?) of climatologists. You seem to support them though.

Are you also a member of the Flat Earth Society? Come on, FES up.

Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming

Temperature data from four international science institutions. All show rapid warming in the past few decades and that the last decade has been the warmest on record. Data sources: NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Met Office Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit and the Japanese Meteorological Agency.
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

[jc100]

Come on we all know who voted for Wynn, everybody sucking on the Government's teat. Teachers, civil servants, unions and everybody else who thinks the inmates should be running the jail!

I didnt. I'm unionized. I teach. I can also recognize an over ambitious, career focussed (rather than people) scheming moron when I see one.

 

[Neil_V]

So say the nay-sayers, who are apparently a very small minority (3% ?) of climatologists. You seem to support them though.

Are you also a member of the Flat Earth Society? Come on, FES up.

Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming

The programming is strong with you young grasshopper... watch the video and get back to us.. Maybe I'll get into the 97%.. you know what I will let the wall street journal give you an introduction into where that came from and how blatantly false it actually is.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

PS that pretty graph (almost as pretty as the last I might add) has a time scale of 140 years and shows a mean temperature change of........ ?

wait for it

wait for it

wait for it

1 bloody degree; if you're being generous
see above for models vs actual observed data argument

 

[jc100]

The programming is strong with you young grasshopper... watch the video and get back to us.. Maybe I'll get into the 97%.. you know what I will let the wall street journal give you an introduction into where that came from and how blatantly false it actually is.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

PS that pretty graph (almost as pretty as the last I might add) has a time scale of 140 years and shows a mean temperature change of........ ?

wait for it

wait for it

wait for it

1 bloody degree; if you're being generous
see above for models vs actual observed data argument

1 degree as a percentage of an average daily temperature is very large and 1 degree above freezing represents melting glaciers and ice caps.

Forum Sponsor