Okay we know that hurricane Harvey is Jerry's fault... He just had to write this inaccurate statement... "Hurricanes have been almost entirely absent for the last ten years." 😀 Of course, now we have one of likely the most damaging ever, given its stalled state and dropping rain that is measured in feet, not inches.
For more of Jerry's wisdom ...
G2A How to Deal with Rising Oceans
G2A RCPs and Forecasts
G2A More on Climate Change
For more of Jerry's wisdom ...
G2A How to Deal with Rising Oceans
G2A RCPs and Forecasts
G2A More on Climate Change
91 comments:
It's important to distinguish between weather and climate.
--Hiram
Agreed. However the concept is that as the climate changes, so will the weather...
They had hurricanes before climate change. Winter too.
--Hiram
I have read that in general climate change is causing more stalled or slow moving weather systems which results in more heavy rainfalls and flooding (not sure if this is relevant to the heavy rainfall and flooding in Texas or if the very heavy rain is typical of hurricanes.)
My house is at the bottom of the street on top of a very small hill. About 10 years ago when we had 8 or 9 inches of rain we were completely surrounded by water like a little island but none came in. I am hoping we don't get that much or more rain again.
Now imagine if you had gotten 48 inches of rain... (ie 4 feet)
Here is an interesting IPCC web page.
Perhaps if we cleared up the terminology? "Climate change" is something in the weather that is different than it was the day, week, year, century before. It has been going on for a million years or so. Now, the "scientists," and I use that word very loosely, have "evidence" for only one kind of climate change, namely global warming.
So, "climate change" is real. Sometimes there are hurricanes. And global warming happens every year, too, long about April or May. Those who want to blame humans for anything and everything, and deny that Nature always has and always will prevail, want us to take the fact that climate changes or the weather changes and immediately jump to the completely irrational conclusion that we humans are responsible for it all. And by calling it "climate change" instead of "global warming" it doesn't matter what happens. If the climate changes, which it always will, it's your fault.
Actually sections 1.3 and 1.4 of my linked site discuss a wide variety of climate changes. Of course most of them are related to an ever increasing amount of energy being stored in the water, soil and air in the form of heat energy.
I always find it interesting that you deny the reality that "changes have consequences". And that somehow humans can go from being in essence just another animal to being an energy creating force with no change occurring?
Man Made CO2 Over Time
Now I don't know enough about CO2 to understand why it matters. However I do know that with every release we are converting potential energy that was stored deep in the earth to active energy that exists in our atmosphere.
"And global warming happens every year, too, long about April or May."
You really do not understand what you're talking about.
Moose
Moose,
I think he was trying to be humorous. :-)
It's funnier if you understand what the word 'global' means, but maybe that's just me.
Moose
I think your explanation of the science of global warming / climate change is a bit off John, so as I can not do better I am throwing in a NASA link:
A blanket around the Earth
The challenge is that as Jerry says, just increasing CO2 should help turn our planet into a lush green rain forest since plants love CO2 and rain...
"•Meanwhile, some crops and other plants may respond favorably to increased atmospheric CO2, growing more vigorously and using water more efficiently. At the same time, higher temperatures and shifting climate patterns may change the areas where crops grow best and affect the makeup of natural plant communities."
Which should use ever more CO2.
'The challenge is that as Jerry says, just increasing CO2 should help turn our planet into a lush green rain forest since plants love CO2 and rain...'
'Which should use ever more CO2.'
Don't forget about the oceans.
Moose
I'll just leave this here.
New Republic: This Is What Flood Denialism Looks Like
I do agree fully with these paragraphs... Using Federal dollars to bail out people, cities, states and businesses who build / stay in a flood plain is silly.
"There was once hope that Congress would deal with this. In 2012, bipartisan legislation mandated new FEMA maps that would allow annual premium increases of 20 percent and phase out subsidies for high-risk homes built before the maps were adopted. But to the surprise of nobody, people living in those areas didn’t like paying flood insurance rates that reflected their actual risk. Just one year later, Congress rescinded the changes and delayed increases until 2017, which if I read my calendar correctly is now.
Because most states contain at least some risk, the coalition to shield homeowners from the folly of living in a flood-prone area is ideologically diverse, from Massachusetts to Mississippi. In addition, coastal properties can be among the highest valued in the nation, meaning that we’re often not only subsidizing wetter areas but wealthier people. Nobody wants to tell them it makes no sense to live where they live. That’s true even though at least one-third of all NFIP claims come from “repetitive-loss” properties, whose owners pay radically reduced premiums dating back to the 1970s."
I don't get to say this very often - I agree with John - about not wanting to pay for rich or other people building their homes in areas at high risk for hurricanes, floods, mudslides etc. Those people should pay high insurance rates to protect their property.
and here is an on topic link with some interesting Harvey facts:
Harvey Is What Climate Change Looks Like
It’s time to open our eyes and prepare for the world that’s coming.
I have not seen anywhere in this thread where someone has proven that the "climate change" we are seeing is anything other than entirely natural, or at most very slightly influenced by human CO2. Freakish, yes. Unnatural or man-caused, no.
jerrye9
Jerry,
I become more certain with every passing year that there is no amount of proof that will get you to reconsider your position on this topic.
You are as adamant that an extra 6+ Billion humans digging up and burning millions of tons of fossil fuels daily, and changing the land usage significantly has had no impact on the earth as the day we started discussing it.
Though I am not a CAGW believer, even I can accept that actions have consequences. Pre-1850 the humans had pretty much no impact on the environmental balance of this big blue marble. That of course is not the situation today.
As I explained once before, if one has a balance beam (ie see saw) with 100 lbs on both sides the beam stays safely level. However it does not take much of an adjustment to the load on one side before the beam becomes unbalanced and dumps everything off it.
I don't understand this - "Though I am not a CAGW believer"
(CAGW) catastrophic anthropogenic global warming
climate change is largely settled science (complex models are not perfect.) It is not some persons belief system like religion is
Laurie, Climate Change is itself a misnomer, and it came into being because everytime Al Gore went someplace to talk about Global Warming, there was a blizzard. It became known as the "Gore Effect." Now if temperatures go up, it's "climate change" and if temps go down, it's "climate change." If it's wetter or drier, no matter because either way it's "climate change." Besides, no one has yet proved any part of the CAGW /hypothesis/ let alone elevating it to the status of a working "theory." Not that it will be catastrophic, not that it's anthropogenic, not that it's global, and not even that it is warming as a result of human influence. That it is getting warmer over the last 150 years or so, nobody disputes. But when you tell me you can PREDICT the temperature 100 years from now to 1/100 of a degree, you're vastly "overruning the headlights" of every known science, and straight into the realm of blind faith.
John, you keep coming back to that billions of tons (or whatever) of fossil fuel CO2 "upsetting the balance." So all you have to do to convince me is to explain, with real math: 1) that manmade CO2 is the principal driver of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and 2) That total CO2 is the principal driver of global temperatures.
Let's see quantitative evidence, not just unsupported assertions.
Oh, and John, your STATIC "balance beam" analogy does not represent well a "chaotic system that makes temperature prediction impossible," as the IPCC admits.
Jerry,
I have no desire to try to convince you of anything. After nearly a decade of exchanging comments I am very well aware that your cup is full, there simply is not any room in it for new information, concepts, reconsideration, knowledge, etc.
Remember what my Adult Psych prof told me... "Not all old people are wise." Just curious, at what age did you stop truly listening to opposing views, information that conflicts with your fixed views, etc?
And yes the beam works very well, you apparently believe that the Earth is behaving as it has for many millennia. That in some way the balance of the Earth's atmosphere is immune to the changes that humans are introducing into a fairly small enclosed system. Remember that though the sky and space looks really big, our usable atmosphere is only ~6 miles deep...
Now the Earth's systems will likely react to the additional load that we are placing on one end of the scale. (ie gases that would not have been present in the atmosphere if humans were not here) However we humans may not like Mother Nature's equal and opposite adjustment.
Laurie,
So far CAGW or Run Away Change is just a theory. So yes it is very much like a religion.
No one knows with any certainty how Climate Change will end, or how the Earth will respond to being warmed up a few degrees. Could we cause more eruptions that will then cool the planet?
'Laurie, Climate Change is itself a misnomer, and it came into being because everytime Al Gore went someplace to talk about Global Warming, there was a blizzard. It became known as the "Gore Effect."'
More lies from you, jerry. I shouldn't be surprised. The IPCC was formed in the late 1980s. Do you know what the CC stands for?
Furthermore, do you know on what scale a blizzard happens? Trust me, it's not global.
Moose
Moose,
I do agree that the term Global Warming was in vogue for awhile there in the main stream media and with Liberal politicians, but as Jerry said... It was real hard for folks to believe in global warming when it is cold outside... So now everything is climate change this and climate change that.
And you must remember that it is not a lie if there is no intent to deceive. "Lie: a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood." And the reality is that Jerry truly believes what he writes... So he may be incorrect without lying... So please apologize.
Here are some links regarding the topic.
SS GW vs CC
NASA GW vs CC
"So now everything is climate change this and climate change that."
Never mind that it's more accurate.
"And you must remember that it is not a lie if there is no intent to deceive."
Jerry knows very well what the CC stands for. I'll just call it a Trump-ism, then. Most people just call them lies.
Moose
"... a fairly small enclosed system." Really? You believe that? Can you prove how small it is, mathematically, by citing the percent of total CO2 that is generated by humans? It must be nearly 50% by now, right? Maybe higher? Unprecedented? I'm still hearing unsubstantiated assertions and being denounced because I have substantiated proof of the opposite. I'll accept new knowledge, but I won't accept new fables.
And yet for many years the "theory" was called CAGW-- the theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming-- and rightly so, because the entire theory was predicated on the notion that manmade CO2, being a Greenhouse Gas, was making the planet get warmer, and that eventually it would be catastrophic. The climate models all have that assumption as the primary basis of their predictions. None of them have ever predicted the world getting cooler, but they ALL predict more warming than has actually occurred. I don't think the modellers intend to deceive; that is what the models say. It is when the politicians and media and acolytes of the global warming religion get involved that the deceit (or perhaps more correctly the CONceit) takes place.
Okay everybody...
Does anyone think that Jerry is open to learning new things, considering different perspectives, analyzing additional information, etc at this point in his life?
Or do you think he is working off the same album from 10 years ago... Sometimes he almost gets to a new place, but then the needle skips back to the old melodies?
Jerry,
For my curiosity, tell us about some big change in your thinking that has occurred over the past 10 years? Something that you see as a sign that you are becoming more mature and wise with age.
So, unless I agree with you, I'm not willing to "learn new things"? What happened to your responsibility to convince me with facts and unassailable logic, rather than unsupported assertions and ad hominem innuendo?
For example, can you offer any proof that these climate models can predict a "global" temperature 100 years from now with any degree of accuracy? That would be a new "fact" I could learn. I would be surprised, of course. In our many debates on the subject you have never offered such fundamental evidence. I am learning, I think, that you have no such evidence.
Personally I am indifferent if you agree with me... And you avoided my question.
"For my curiosity, tell us about some big change in your thinking that has occurred over the past 10 years? Something that you see as a sign that you are becoming more mature and wise with age."
It can be about any topic. I am just curios if you even have the capacity to truly reconsider your positions, behaviors, beliefs, etc?
One of my latest reads was Living Successfully with Screwed Up People. My extended family is full of them, likely including myself... However admitting it is the first step. It is an excellent read and I will be discussing it in the future when life slows down a bit.
so how about you answer your own question , John- tell us about some big change in your thinking that has occurred over the past 10 years?
for me, off the top of my head, my thinking about education has shifted slightly, there are probably other things on which my views have been modified, but they aren't coming to mind right now.
Most of my big changes have been with regard to how I inter-relate to my Parents, Spouse, Children and others. I used to be very reactive when communicating with them, they could push my buttons and I would react.
Through a lot of studying and practice I have learned to let them behave as they wish, without taking it personally.
Also, G2A has helped me to truly sanction that people truly hold different beliefs whether I can understand them or not. Possibly this contributed for my big shifts from:
Sensing towards Intuition
Judging towards Perceiving
I also studied, created and committed myself to the G2A Principles about 10 years ago.
Finally I really started to believe in the power of gratitude and unconditional love...
It has been a very busy 10 years...
"In this case, we didn’t have just a tropical storm like Claudette, but a major hurricane, which covered a much larger area with heavy rain. Roger Pielke Jr. has pointed out that the U.S. has had only four Category 4 (or stronger) hurricane strikes since 1970, but in about the same number of years preceding 1970 there were 14 strikes. So we can’t say that we are experiencing more intense hurricanes in recent decades. …
And don’t forget, we just went through an unprecedented length of time – almost 12 years – without a major hurricane (Cat 3 or stronger) making landfall in the U.S."
Just in the last year, I have learned that others will not be convinced by facts and logic because of a) confirmation bias and b) the Iron Law of knowledge. We have ample proof of that here.
'So we can’t say that we are experiencing more intense hurricanes in recent decades. …
And don’t forget, we just went through an unprecedented length of time – almost 12 years – without a major hurricane (Cat 3 or stronger) making landfall in the U.S."'
Which, as one would hope was learned a few weeks ago in our discussion, does not indicate that there have been fewer intense/major hurricanes in the Atlantic and Caribbean.
IOW, it only proves that such storms haven't hit the U.S. at the same frequency in recent times. It does NOT prove that there have been fewer intense/major hurricanes.
Furthermore, the problem with this storm was not its wind speeds or that it had copious amounts of moisture (exacerbated by warmer waters) to work with, but that it was unable to move because of stagnant weather patterns over North America. Slower moving weather patterns are one of the things climate scientists have mentioned as a possible effect of Climate Change.
I doubt you can blame this on Climate Change. You can certainly blame some of the problems on Texas governance, however.
Moose
Jerry,
I am pretty sure you have found others difficult and head strong for a lot longer than the last year... Also, I am more interested in the bolded words.
"Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself." Tolstoy
I believe that wisdom comes as one considers and improves themselves. That is why the 7 habits focus on the self.
And How to Win Friends and Influence People explains more ways to bring people to your of thinking through positive actions.
Your seeing other people as the problem is telling.
Yes, I have noticed idiots and stupidity abounding for decades. I learned long ago that part of the difficulty was with "information processing" styles, with "Sensors" and "Perceivers" particularly ill-suited to working with "Intuitive Thinkers" and vice versa. But it is only recently that I discovered differences in matters of information RECEIVING, as mentioned.
As a result, I am attempting to change old habits of communicating, along the lines you suggest. Sometimes people are convinced better by empathy than by sledgehammer logic. All that said, I refuse to give up what I know and believe just because somebody else refuses to acknowledge the truth.
Desiderata
"...climate scientists have mentioned as a possible effect of Climate Change." -- Moose
here are some more 'effects'
So how do you KNOW that YOU are not the idiot?
Or the one suffering from poor information intake?
Because I know what I know. If I thought I was wrong, I wouldn't be trying to convince you I'm right. I wouldn't even know how to begin to do that; it is tough enough trying to convince you that YOU are ill-informed or misinformed, or Fallen prey to some other "information processing error.."
And I have admitted previously that, depending upon one's selection of facts in a complex issue, one can arrive easily at a false conclusion, especially when the previously-mentioned biases are at work. So I remain open to proof that I have indeed missed the truth of the matter. The problem is that, in this case, I have yet to see any to the contrary which is as strong (for example, specific) as what I already have in the affirmative.
Go ahead. Convince me. I repeat: can you offer any proof that these climate models can predict a "global" temperature 100 years from now with any degree of accuracy? if I am indeed misinformed, try informing me before accusing me of "poor information intake."
Jerry, your tacit agreement with my other points is duly noted. Thank you.
Moose
'...if I am indeed misinformed, try informing me before accusing me of "poor information intake."'
Your output is erroneous. Therefore, your input is suspect.
Moose
"I doubt you can blame this on Climate Change."-- Moose
Is that the statement I am tacitly agreeing with? Because if you agree with me, you must be right. :-)
Only in your totally unsubstantiated opinion my output is erroneous. My input cannot be suspect because you have not given me any that would contradict the voluminous input I already have on this issue. In short, you don't have a scientific, mathematical or logical leg to stand on, that I have seen.
"Only in your totally unsubstantiated opinion my output is erroneous."
No. You must have forgotten your false assertion about Atlantic hurricanes from a few weeks ago. That's okay; I also to like to forget about the times I've been dead wrong.
Moose
"Is that the statement I am tacitly agreeing with?"
No. This one.
"You can certainly blame some of the problems on Texas governance, however."
Moose
My agreement must have been really, really tacit, because I'm pretty sure I strongly disagree with it. Of course, you are consistent. You make a bold statement with no supporting evidence whatsoever, and expect me to agree. Just as you say my conclusions are wrong while offering ZERO credible evidence to the contrary. I'll say it. The moon is not made of green cheese just because you say so.
If you don't realize that Texas' governance contributed to the problems Houston is experiencing, you're just stupid.
Moose
Gentlemen,
Please be polite and professional. My posting regarding what makes one wise or an idiot was to discuss a concept, not to change the G2A rules.
And if you can't prove that "Texas governance" created Harvey and its aftermath, we will assume, ... (rule infraction deleted)
My apologies. "Willfully ignorant" is the term I meant to use.
Moose
That is an interesting term, and I have often used it myself but never had it applied to me. On further consideration, I find it an oxymoron. And that is not a special type of moron, so it's not an insult. "Ignorance: noun: lack of knowledge or information" It seems to me that if one has knowledge or information but chooses to discount or ignore it, that is indeed willful, but not ignorance. I call it "willful blindness," of course not in the literal sense. It's simply a less-exact term than "confirmation bias."
And as I have explained half a dozen times recently, the only way to overcome confirmation bias is with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
So, I had agreed with you that Harvey could not be blamed on Climate Change, a position I held before you chimed in. I have never believed that Texas' "governance" had anything to do with Harvey, so I rejected that notion out of hand and only the most overwhelming and specific evidence will ever convince me otherwise. In short, can you prove it? I mean, a little badinage is fun, even diverting in the middle of a serious discussion, but do we really want to run off-track with it?
Jerry,
It looks like your "willful blindness" comments regarding no hurricanes or climate change has attracted another hurricane toward the USA... Just like when I wash my car...
Hopefully you see the light before your denial of reality attracts a 3rd... :-)
Now as for your strange statements above.
No, climate change did not cause Harvey. Though it may have cause it to stall in place longer, create the huge rainfalls and the incredible flooding.
No, the Texas / Houston governments had nothing to do with Harvey. However their lack of control over construction, lack of preparation regarding flood diversion projects, etc definitely made the consequences worse.
Slate has some pretty good maps here. They explain how the Texas governments failed their citizens. And worse how their failure will cost US tax payers A LOT of money.
$180,000,000,000 could have paid for A LOT of other things.
Harvey's stall-out was caused by two "blocking" high-pressure zones, something that occurs naturally all the time, just not with a Hurricane approaching. The total rainfall from Harvey was not unusual, just concentrated unlike other hurricane/tropical storms.
The government did what government does-- make decisions with the best information (and intent) they could. You can accuse them of being wrong, but you cannot accuse them of wrong-doing; it's the typical liberal mindset. We never blamed the governance of New Orleans for taking bribes and allowing sub-standard levees to be built, did we? Or of leaving hundreds of busses sit idle that could have aided the evacuation? Or refusing FEMA's help? Let's not go there.
Sorry, but you need to widen your information sources. Even major news outlets carried the information that we have had about 12 years without a major hurricane striking the US, until Harvey. That we may have another still puts us behind the average, while the Climate Changers maintain their prediction we will have MORE. At what point do we stop believing these doomsayers?
Is it dark behind that blind fold you are wearing? :-)
Oh well time is on the side of the climate change folks.
And all this natural disaster will keep people rebuilding and taxes high. Climate change catastrophes are going to be like a HUGE GOVERNMENT jobs program...
Time has already passed the climate change folks by. So many of their predictions have failed there should be a huge gravestone over the movement, yet like a zombie it continues....
And this NATURAL disaster will require fixing, just the same as if it were caused by human CO2. So why should we spend all that money on windmills and solar cells that will NOT stop the natural disasters, and put that money in an infrastructure fund that builds something positive, instead of rebuilding something we already had?
Blind. Simply blind. It's really no use trying to have a conversation. Can't even admit that he's not seeing the entire picture. Well, he's looking at a different picture altogether; one that he's created for himself.
Moose
Unfortunately Jerry is not alone, there is a whole industry that is working hard to make things fuzzier than they need to be.
On the other hand there are also a bunch of Chicken Littles out there saying the sky is falling on the other side...
It is fascinating...
One could be forgiven for thinking the sky actually DID fall in Houston.
Moose
Good point, however I heard a climate expert on NPR say that he thinks Harvey would have occurred anyway. Though he did think there was a 10% increase in rainfall due to the warmer air and gulf water temps.
45" or 50" rainfall is notable, however probably not quite the sky falling.
Of course if the rain events and heat wave events keep getting more intense... Some people really will feel that the sky is falling. Thanks heavens I live in MN.
"Thanks heavens I live in MN."
Where we are also seeing an increase in mega-rain events. We had two in the State last year.
Moose
And thank heavens I live on a big hill... About 40 feet above the nearest marsh... If my house floods, break out the arc.
"Of course if the rain events and heat wave events keep getting more intense... Some people really will feel that the sky is falling. Thanks heavens I live in MN."
Let me issue a challenge for you. Even if you are not concerned about your own house flooding, or about sweating to death in a heat wave while your AC has burned out, I would assume you have some amount of compassion for folks like those in Houston who are suffering from a natural disaster. so my challenge would be: HOW are you going to prevent these natural disasters or, on a smaller scale, prevent these "rain events and heatwave events" from occurring?
on a side note, your mention of "40 feet" reminds me of visiting small villages on the upper Amazon where they have adapted to an annual water level change (between "high water season" and "low water season") of 40 feet, every year. And these people have Nothing. Imagine how much better we could adapt, with our vast economic resources.
"HOW are you going to prevent these natural disasters or, on a smaller scale, prevent these "rain events and heatwave events" from occurring?"
Better government in Texas could have prevented the effects from being as bad as they are.
Moose
Now Jerry is a big fan of spending to adapt... I wonder if Houston / Texas will take this opportunity to move the city to higher ground?
And who is going to pay to turn all those low lying areas into flood plains?
Congress just passed an $8 billion relief package to rebuild Houston. By some accounts, we have already spent almost $200 billion trying to prevent "things like Harvey" by trying to prevent Global Warming, by trying to reduce fossil fuel CO2 emissions, and failed. Where would YOU rather spend your money, if it was your money?
I do know that after the great flood of Seward, Alaska, they did in fact move the whole town across the bay to a "safer" location. but that's only one form of adaptation. There are other options, all of them cheaper and more certain than trying to prevent these natural disasters from occurring.
What I am trying to point out is that the peoples of Chicago and Minneapolis are paying extra to prevent Climate Change, but that Hurricane Harvey did not impact us at all, and it is highly unlikely any future hurricane will.
"What I am trying to point out is that the peoples of Chicago and Minneapolis are paying extra to prevent Climate Change, but that Hurricane Harvey did not impact us at all, and it is highly unlikely any future hurricane will."
The extreme rainfall event over SE MN in 2007 was a result of remnant moisture from Tropical Storm Erin.
More science facts that you're apparently unaware of. I'm not shocked.
Moose
Personally I would rather pay for cleaner energy and force cities to relocate.
Unfortunately the Texans will likely fight that if there are "deniers" in charge.
The extreme rainfall over MN from Erin happened in 2007. It did not hit Minneapolis or Chicago in 2017. Once again you seem determined to make a liar out of me for saying things I never said. And more importantly you miss the point. Erin was a natural event. Harvey was a natural event. You haven't offered a scintilla of evidence that either was "caused" by a lack of "clean energy."
And that term is a misnomer, for certain. CO2 occurs naturally, and is in our lungs at 100 times the concentration it is in the atmosphere. If CO2 were a pollutant we would all be dead by our own breathing.
John, if you prefer to pay for "green energy," there are ways you can do that without imposing those costs on the rest of us, who will soon realize there is nothing "green" about the current solutions. They operate at fractions of the time that conventional power does, so they are unreliable and require fossil fuel backups most of the time, so they only "save" CO2 when they are running-- less than 1/3 of the time in MN. Furthermore, the costs to mine, refine, etc. these installations creates more CO2 than they "save" in their lifetime, sort of like ethanol. And they produce more hazardous waste per MW than nuclear power does. And of course all of this assumes that anthropogenic CO2 is the principal cause of some catastrophic Climate Change.
One more time: if you want to, or hope we all would, switch to some form of energy that produces less CO2, it is easy. Invent one that is cheaper and equally reliable to the fossil fuels we have now, and we will all happily buy it. We won't care about the CO2, and more than we should care about the CO2 we're creating now.
"...it is highly unlikely any future hurricane will."
So you didn't mean what you said or you made an intentionally false statement. Got it.
"The extreme rainfall over MN from Erin happened in 2007."
Proving that hurricanes can and do impact Minnesota, rendering your statement, at best, uneducated.
If you're going to claim to be a know-it-all with regards to your denialism, you should at least know SOMETHING about reality.
Moose
"They operate at fractions of the time that conventional power does, so they are unreliable and require fossil fuel backups most of the time..."
Funny Thing, Reality
Moose
One would swear that Jerry thinks the sun and wind are rare events in America.
OK, look up the official numbers on "availability factor" for solar and wind in MN. As best I recall, wind was something like 36% and solar something like 12%. I happen to know something about it, since I have passive solar at my house. The first year, I got 3 days out of thirty in January. You're under 37% just counting nights, and with cloudy days...
The other thing you can do is to look at some of these public-works solar installations. The last one I saw had a "payback" period of 150 years. Funny thing, reality, it is not always what our pipe-dreams would have it be.
"Funny thing, reality, it is not always what our pipe-dreams would have it be."
I know, which is why your earlier statement is particularly silly.
"They operate at fractions of the time that conventional power does, so they are unreliable and require fossil fuel backups most of the time..."
When push came to shove, petroleum had to go offline following Harvey. Wind is up and running, and was only offline for a short period.
Moose
Now let us try something different... The kids call these sources...
EIA Today in Energy
Economists Clean Energy's Dirty Secret
As for going off line and coming back on line... That is more a factor of where they were located than a measure of their robustness. Maybe they should move the refineries up into the hills...
How about finding the source that says solar availability is 12% and wind 36%, and then tell me this is the way we save the planet. Someone has done the math and determined we can never get to 100% renewables simply because renewables do not produce enough electricity to make more renewables. I mean, wishes are wonderful, but reality sometimes differs.
I admire strong faith in religious matters, but not in matters of math.
How about you find your own sources instead of just espousing opinions?
Though I agree that we will not get to 100% renewables for a long time for many reasons.
However this is just plain old silly.
"renewables do not produce enough electricity to make more renewables"
If they are producing 10% of our country's power, I am pretty sure they are creating more than enough to build more systems.
"I am pretty sure they are creating more than enough to build more systems."
That sounds like an opinion. I've seen the math, and frankly, it ought to be simple logic. At least when I post something I am trying to share information I have come across, somewhere (and that happens to agree with my opinion, in at least some tangential fashion). If you wish to disagree, you should either find the source I did and convince yourself, or find a source with different numbers.
"When controlling for unrecorded Hurricanes, researchers found there has been no statistically significant increase in Atlantic hurricane activity between 1878 and 2006."
hurricanes and CO2
Post a Comment