A Little Global Warming, Anyone??

witchbottles

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
8,832
Likes
1,430
Points
163
Location
Rio Vista, CA
#1
Rio Vista, CA - heart of the Northern California Delta. average highs in end of August run 95-100 F (37-37.8 C). Average daily winds run west to eat at 10-15 mph (23.5-24.5 kph). The offshore flow from the San Francisco Bay acts to control the microclimate, preventing overheating.

Yesterday's high temp at Rio Vista Airport - 114 F (45.6 C), 33 % humidity, winds nil.Friday was 108 F (42.3 C), 30% humidity, winds nil. Today is forecast 105 F (40.6 C) 39 % humidity, winds nil.

These kind of temps are normal for northen central valley climates,(North of Williams/oOroville area) but running a good 10-15 degrees above normal for this area, and the loss of the offshore convection currents is making the humidity worse.

It's tough on my dogs, and my feet. We're sheltering in place under misting systems in the afternoons to stay as cool as possible. Sure be glad when the massive high pressure ridge finally comes loose over the Bay and Delta. Even San Francisco hit 95 F(35C) yesterday, and that is one hot temp in a town where the August average high is 65 F (18.4 C).
 

Dave68124

Active Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
14,767
Likes
497
Points
83
Location
United States
#2
The old saying about San Fran weather has always been true. You wear a jacket to Giants games and a t-shirt to 49er's games.
 

Paul M. Weir

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
8,114
Likes
2,031
Points
163
Location
Dublin
First name
Paul
#3
The fact that the recent storms that have hit the US in the last couple of decades have garnered epithets like "Once a century flooding" should give everyone a strong hint.

As an aside, the conservative religious might ponder the difference in severity in storm strength between the mainly red (Harvey) and blue (Sandy) states affected. Maybe a little divine nudge to reconsider the validity of global climate change :D?
 

Sparafucil3

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
17,361
Likes
1,370
Points
163
Location
USA
First name
Jim
#4
As an aside, the conservative religious might ponder the difference in severity in storm strength between the mainly red (Harvey) and blue (Sandy) states affected. Maybe a little divine nudge to reconsider the validity of global climate change :D?
I don't think many people "deny" climate change. It has been happening for eons. I don't think many even doubt the fact that man is a contributing factor. The question is what do you do to change it? You say cut green-house gases. OK, by how much and at what cost for what return? Battery powered stuff isn't the answer without a significant change. Some of the largest ecological disasters in the US are superfund sites to clean up after batteries. Can't go nuc in the US anyway, everyone get's their panties in a twist. Solar and wind aren't quite there yet. Wouldn't hurt to invest, of course lots of people in the US get their panties in a twist over owls or bats being killed by wind turbines.

I think the so-called deniers just want to know the plan, how much it's going to cost (real costs and opportunity costs) and whose going to pay for it. If I don't do anything and the seas rise 10 feet or if I spend a gazillion dollars and the seas rise 9 feet, it is really going to be worth it. The problem is, no one can say what we get in return. And given that climate change has been happening since long before the first lung fish slithered out onto the surface, I am not entirely sure there is a whole lot we can do about it. Sure, cut emissions, do what we can, no doubt. But are we really savvy enough to deal with the climate and not completely screw it up? You offering guarantees and returns on a damaged climate if you fuck it up? Do I get to wag my finger in your face when we spend trillions and the outcome is still the same? Neither of us will be around but you get my point. If it's science, show me the math. They can't even tell me the weather tomorrow with any accuracy. -- jim
 

witchbottles

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
8,832
Likes
1,430
Points
163
Location
Rio Vista, CA
#5
I don't think many people "deny" climate change. It has been happening for eons. I don't think many even doubt the fact that man is a contributing factor. The question is what do you do to change it? You say cut green-house gases. OK, by how much and at what cost for what return? Battery powered stuff isn't the answer without a significant change. Some of the largest ecological disasters in the US are superfund sites to clean up after batteries. Can't go nuc in the US anyway, everyone get's their panties in a twist. Solar and wind aren't quite there yet. Wouldn't hurt to invest, of course lots of people in the US get their panties in a twist over owls or bats being killed by wind turbines.

I think the so-called deniers just want to know the plan, how much it's going to cost (real costs and opportunity costs) and whose going to pay for it. If I don't do anything and the seas rise 10 feet or if I spend a gazillion dollars and the seas rise 9 feet, it is really going to be worth it. The problem is, no one can say what we get in return. And given that climate change has been happening since long before the first lung fish slithered out onto the surface, I am not entirely sure there is a whole lot we can do about it. Sure, cut emissions, do what we can, no doubt. But are we really savvy enough to deal with the climate and not completely screw it up? You offering guarantees and returns on a damaged climate if you fuck it up? Do I get to wag my finger in your face when we spend trillions and the outcome is still the same? Neither of us will be around but you get my point. If it's science, show me the math. They can't even tell me the weather tomorrow with any accuracy. -- jim
The answer is simple, so simple people miss the "forest for the trees".

Yep, you guessed it, plant more trees. Lots and lots of them to replace the miles upon miles mowed down to make room for man's "wants". How do you get people to do that? Simple again, make it economically viable to desire planting them in the first place.
Well, we all know and accept that we need to cut out trans, saturated, and polyunsaturated fats from our diets to stop the global epidemic of diabetes type II.
Olive oil is a monounsaturated fat and highly recommended. Further, it fetches a market price non-par due to its healthy food connotation popularity. An olive grove to manufacture enough oil for profit requires about 400 trees, minimum.

We all need, want and desire to eat healthier snacks, so apple, pear, pomegranate, trees all come to mind and many farmers are seeing the light and planting them, in fact. It is a "cash crop" when its farm to fork delivery and it also has resulted in the planting of over 15,000 new trees here in Northern CA alone. (And the farmer's enjoy the profit for a change, rather than struggling to get water rights enough to irrigate crops that require more than drip irrigation).

Fix the problem, plant a plant. any kind of plant. I have two tomato vines, a mint plant that is H>U>G>E, and grow my own lemongrass, thyme, cinnamon basil, and oregano. We top that off with a pair of baby sweet bell pepper plants that are DELISH!!!!.

Add in the fact that we not only get the crop harvest for free, but each and every one of those plants is helping to offset our carbon footprint.

Plant something, nurture it, and encourage others to do the same. One mature five year old Eucalyptus pulls as much carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere in one day as one human adult generates in a year.

What is irksome to me (and no reflection on you, Jim), are those who deny the solution is really so simple. It really is quite simple.

The Earth is going to get warmer, it's a fact of our Sun, it is growing as the millennia pass and one-day will scorch all life off of Earth, about 30 million + years from now, as it begins to do what all main sequence stars do. That does not prevent our planting vegetation to slow and yes, even reverse , the amount of CO2 being emitted into the atmpshere by human life.
 

witchbottles

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
8,832
Likes
1,430
Points
163
Location
Rio Vista, CA
#6
By the by, solar power and wind power are proven common and acceptable means to ease the power consumption of insatiable humans. There are net- zero carbon emission countries on our planet at this moment. the US can't get over the need for someone to "make a profit" for anything to happen, at all.
 

Sparafucil3

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
17,361
Likes
1,370
Points
163
Location
USA
First name
Jim
#8
the US can't get over the need for someone to "make a profit" for anything to happen, at all.
Have you put solar panels on your house? I have. They weren't free by any stretch. I also have a solar panel on my water heater. I have a power wall for my next car. My wife already runs an all electric car. Seems like I "got over it". You? -- jim
 

witchbottles

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
8,832
Likes
1,430
Points
163
Location
Rio Vista, CA
#9
Have you put solar panels on your house? I have.
We use solar panels to generate power for the water heater, for the air conditioner, and for the swamp cooler.

They weren't free by any stretch.
My point exactly. Someone has to make a profit before solar panels are even made available in mass production.

I also have a solar panel on my water heater. I have a power wall for my next car. My wife already runs an all electric car. Seems like I "got over it". You? -- jim
Great news! besides the above, see this.
 

MrP

Smile,you won didn't you?
Joined
Feb 17, 2003
Messages
5,783
Likes
414
Points
83
Location
Woof? Bark? Whine?
Skype
ian.percy
#10
Solar panels, at least here in sunny NZ have a 5-7 year payback...I reckon ours will do it in just over 5. Their imbued carbon cost is low too. The best thing any government anywhere could do is make it mandatory for any new build house to have a 5kw solar array....zero maintenance and super cheap if done at build time. Global warming solved ☺
 

Vinnie

See Dummies in the index
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
17,352
Likes
1,214
Points
163
Location
Aberdeen , Scotland
Skype
vinnie296
#11
Solar panels, at least here in sunny NZ have a 5-7 year payback...I reckon ours will do it in just over 5. Their imbued carbon cost is low too. The best thing any government anywhere could do is make it mandatory for any new build house to have a 5kw solar array....zero maintenance and super cheap if done at build time. Global warming solved ☺
Not certain it's worth my while...:(
 

Sparafucil3

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
17,361
Likes
1,370
Points
163
Location
USA
First name
Jim
#12
Great news! besides the above, see this.
I saw it. I still want to know the ROI. I know what I am getting out of my solar panels. It isn't all about profit. We don't have unlimited resources. We need to spend what we have wisely. If the solution was simple, you could tell me how much the water was going to rise without doing anything and with doing what you propose. We could judge the outcome of our efforts and decide if the outcome was worth the effort. Like I said, the climate on the planet has been changing for eons. Warming and cooling long before the first animal slithered out of the ooze and took its first breath of air. Oceans have risen and fallen. Lands have moved and re-shaped. There are colossal forces at work well beyond our ability to control. It may get warm enough scorch all life off the planet or it may cool to another ice age. The fact is, you don't really know. Like the weather, you can only guess and predict based on the trend. And if you are a child of the 60's (as I am), you probably recall the "ice-age" scare of the 70's.

What irks me about the global warming debate is the best records we have date back to the end of the little ice age. A period of the earth's history where it was so cold, we called it an ice-age. There are periods of our history (ice core samples) where the greenhouse gases were higher and the earth wasn't as warm as it is today (we think). The data is all over the place and there is no real good model. If there were, we could predict and stop guessing. -- jim
 

JimWhite

Active Member
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
3,961
Likes
371
Points
83
Location
Newark, Delaware
Skype
jim_white33
#13
I saw it. I still want to know the ROI. I know what I am getting out of my solar panels. It isn't all about profit. We don't have unlimited resources. We need to spend what we have wisely. If the solution was simple, you could tell me how much the water was going to rise without doing anything and with doing what you propose. We could judge the outcome of our efforts and decide if the outcome was worth the effort. Like I said, the climate on the planet has been changing for eons. Warming and cooling long before the first animal slithered out of the ooze and took its first breath of air. Oceans have risen and fallen. Lands have moved and re-shaped. There are colossal forces at work well beyond our ability to control. It may get warm enough scorch all life off the planet or it may cool to another ice age. The fact is, you don't really know. Like the weather, you can only guess and predict based on the trend. And if you are a child of the 60's (as I am), you probably recall the "ice-age" scare of the 70's.

What irks me about the global warming debate is the best records we have date back to the end of the little ice age. A period of the earth's history where it was so cold, we called it an ice-age. There are periods of our history (ice core samples) where the greenhouse gases were higher and the earth wasn't as warm as it is today (we think). The data is all over the place and there is no real good model. If there were, we could predict and stop guessing. -- jim
I would tend to say that the majority of accused "climate change deniers" pretty much believe everything Jim said above.
 

Dave68124

Active Member
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
14,767
Likes
497
Points
83
Location
United States
#14
I would tend to say that the majority of accused "climate change deniers" pretty much believe everything Jim said above.
So much easier for the "true believers" to have everyone that doesn't agree with them burned at the stake rather than have a discussion. Come to think of it, I cannot think of many "liberal" social themes that doesn't follow this ritual. Seems the only way they can push it. Joseph G would be proud.
 

bendizoid

Official ***** Dickweed
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
5,021
Likes
654
Points
113
Location
Viet Nam
#16
Solar panels, at least here in sunny NZ have a 5-7 year payback...I reckon ours will do it in just over 5. Their imbued carbon cost is low too. The best thing any government anywhere could do is make it mandatory for any new build house to have a 5kw solar array....zero maintenance and super cheap if done at build time. Global warming solved ☺
MrP, what the hell is 'imbued carbon cost' ? It sounds like a fancy way to say 'tax'.
 

witchbottles

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Messages
8,832
Likes
1,430
Points
163
Location
Rio Vista, CA
#17
...There are colossal forces at work well beyond our ability to control. It may get warm enough scorch all life off the planet or it may cool to another ice age. The fact is, you don't really know. Like the weather, you can only guess and predict based on the trend. And if you are a child of the 60's (as I am), you probably recall the "ice-age" scare of the 70's....
perhaps we cannot state the Sun's progress as a main sequence star is a fact. I can accept that - it is a fact that the current theories on the life cycle of stars are observable for effects, testable by verifying such observations over, and over and over ad nauseum through the last 40 years or so. Further, they are repeatable. pick any single star in the universe out of an astronomical chart, train a powerful telescope onto it, and then record its progress of life as a star over the next year, and the observations made will completely match the predictive theory about what you will see in that star if you were to watch it for that period.

Theory - check.
Hypotheses modified several hundred times to test every permutation of the theory - check.
Experiments performed thousands of times with blind repetition and with independent re-calculation to verify observations - check.
Recorded observations that unilaterally show the identical results without any deviation - check.
Conclusions that the star life cycle theory must be sound drawn from the above, nowhere else - check.

Sounds a lot like the Scientific Method at work to me. Perhaps a pity is that people who want to see the science then refute that it is indeed science. Plain fact is the Earth is going to get warmer, and so warm, all life will one day cease to exist on it, in around 30-35 million years. Within 80 million years or so, the Sun, a main sequence star functioning entirely within the expected predictions based on science, not faith or trends, is going to grow large enough to actually swallow up Mercury, Venus, and Earth completely, as it begins to grow and burn the helium in its core as a fuel source. Although this point will result in a universal view of "cooling" as the light and energy emissions doppler shift into darker and slower wavelengths due to the fusion of Helium rather than Hydrogen, for the planets remaining in this solar system ,the growth will offset that effect to the point where interstellar warming will occur up to around 96 AU (+/-).

That's science, the Earth is going to get hotter. it's not a prediction based anything else but science.

Now that is a long time to see the temperature increase, 35 million years or so before the Earth resembles the daylit side of Mercury. Temps there run about 800 F average (again, science tells us this through experimentation and observation, not predicting trends). so if we currently realize a mean average of say an uncomfortable 96 F ( an overstatement of course but assuming for illustrative purposes - so 36 C), the difference is 710 degree rise over 35 million years = roughly 2.05 degree rise per year. The expected rise would be 1.0 to 1-6 F rising temp to 97.6 maximum average - again , this is math, not predictive trends.

What the earth is actually seeing since records began being accurately kept in 1975 is a 1.8 F increase year by year as an average. So the science, and the math, tend to illustrate a possible hypothesis that we are responsible for about a 0.2 F increase in global temperature, annually and cumulative, since 1975. That is a theory, still being experimented with today. As you do note, Jim, they are still gathering data on that the observations from those experiments. ( ice core samples, etc.).

If the theory holds ultimately true - humans have generated a global increase of temps all by themselves to the tune of 2017-1975 *(0.2 F annual rise, cumulative) = 8.3-8.4 F increase, simply due to our own ineptitude as a species over the last 40 + years.

Guess what? Temp trends recorded since 1975 verify that is indeed the case, and the Earth is running about 8 degrees F +/- hotter than one would expect simply from the functions of the Sun as a main sequence star.

Some (and again, I do not believe for one moment you are one of these people, Jim - you appear to be far too well-educated to act thusly) prefer to stick their heads in the sand and ostrich it all out without examining the science carefully.

Still a theory is just that, a theory. We lived for 300 years or so with a flawed theory that the universe was geocentric, and accepted it as true. We lived for over two hundred years with a flawed theory of gravity from Newton. Theories do change, and in this casew (global warming) there are two in play, from opposite ends of the spectrum. Theory one is that the Sun will behave as every other observed and recorded main sequence star. Theory two is that human life alone is responsible for the extra 8 degree F increase unaccountable by theory 1.

Finally, there exists the following:

1. It is in the best interests of our planet, for ourselves, to actually give a shite and care about not littering, generating clean energy for our needs, cultivating plants and animal species for mutual benefits, finding ways to package that do not require excessive landfill space, never to break down, and so on and so forth. Simply in the best interests of providing for the future of our own offspring. - a highly personal motive for everyone to consider doing just a little bit to make our planet cleaner and less toxic overall. (this includes greenhouse gases, which also generate acid rain and brownfields).

2. If we in industrialized nations seek ways to make natural or man-made, biological or clean filters, generators or other non-toxic and biodegradable packing cheap to manufacture or install, profitable to manufacture or install, and offering residual profits to anyone willing to install them commercially, business interests will do so. Businesses exist to make money. Give them a way to do it in a beneficial manner like planting apple trees instead of making artificially flavored apple juice in plastic cartons, they are going to follow the money, and no other encouragement is ever required.

Communist rant here? Well, take it for what its worth. personally, I feel there are some socialistic ideals that should be requirements of an industrialized society: mandatory conscription, universal health care, flat tax, governmental oversight of toxin-generating business. But those are topics for different threads.
 

Sparafucil3

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
17,361
Likes
1,370
Points
163
Location
USA
First name
Jim
#18
Guess what? Temp trends recorded since 1975 verify that is indeed the case, and the Earth is running about 8 degrees F +/- hotter than one would expect simply from the functions of the Sun as a main sequence star.
Since 1975? That time period is FAR too short to draw a conclusion from. It could he a short term spike and not a long term trend. The long term numbers are far more suggestive of warming. Those are more telling if taken in a vacuum. The problem is, without a lot more data to go along with them, you don't know if they are significant or just a base-line "heartbeat" of a longer running climate.

Some (and again, I do not believe for one moment you are one of these people, Jim - you appear to be far too well-educated to act thusly) prefer to stick their heads in the sand and ostrich it all out without examining the science carefully.
And some, choose to decide their conclusion, before waiting for all the evidence. I know, that's the way of the scientific method, and I get it, but there are an awful lot of people trying to bend the numbers for their own outcome.

I generally agree with your points, but even as a theory, F=MA works pretty well. Where is the theory of climate change that says Xtonnes of Carbon waste = y degree's of temperature raise? Where is the climate theory that says man's emissions add X degree's of temp and without it, the temp raises Y degrees? Again, we have limited resources. I am all for fixing packaging, mileage, etc. But your "mandatory conscription, universal health care, flat tax, governmental oversight of toxin-generating business" all come at a cost, paid for by the taxpayer. We cant' do everything. We have to chose wisely with how we spend what we have. Frankly, conscription is flawed IMO. The rich will find deferments, the poor will bear the cost, and is little more than slavery IMO. Why not take conscription to the extreme and conscript doctors one week a month for free service to all. We should conscript all professionals to take their labor and give it away one week a month.

I do like your flat tax, and I am willing to go to universal health care, but I also think EVERYONE should have some sort of skin in the game. Voting yourself an entitlement without cost, that way lays the madness we are progressing to now. But as you said, another thread, another time. -- jim
 

Sand Bar Bill

Active Member
Silver Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
4,321
Likes
365
Points
83
Location
Putin's backyard
#19
Communist rant here? Well, take it for what its worth. personally, I feel there are some socialistic ideals that should be requirements of an industrialized society: mandatory conscription, universal health care, flat tax, governmental oversight of toxin-generating business. But those are topics for different threads.
Yes, but on different threads I would make some arguments on flat tax and conscription. LOL.
 

MAS01

Active Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
3,386
Likes
320
Points
83
Location
Joplin, MO
First name
Mark
#20
the difference is 710 degree rise over 35 million years = roughly 2.05 degree rise per year. The expected rise would be 1.0 to 1-6 F rising temp to 97.6 maximum average - again , this is math, not predictive trends.
A 710 degree rise over the next 35,000,000 years is NOT 2.05 degrees per year. Simple math (710/35,000,000) shows that is is 0.0000203 degrees per year, or 1 degree every 49,250 years. Hardly anything to get worked up about.


What the earth is actually seeing since records began being accurately kept in 1975 is a 1.8 F increase year by year as an average. So the science, and the math, tend to illustrate a possible hypothesis that we are responsible for about a 0.2 F increase in global temperature, annually and cumulative, since 1975. That is a theory, still being experimented with today. As you do note, Jim, they are still gathering data on that the observations from those experiments. ( ice core samples, etc.).

If the theory holds ultimately true - humans have generated a global increase of temps all by themselves to the tune of 2017-1975 *(0.2 F annual rise, cumulative) = 8.3-8.4 F increase, simply due to our own ineptitude as a species over the last 40 + years.

An average temperature increase of 1.8 degrees F per year since 1975?? That's 75.6 degrees total in the last 42 years. Humans responsible for 0.2 degrees F annually in the same period?? Just who is publishing this drivel? I'd love to see the source that says temps have gone up 75 degree on average globally in the last 42 years.

Guess what? Temp trends recorded since 1975 verify that is indeed the case, and the Earth is running about 8 degrees F +/- hotter than one would expect simply from the functions of the Sun as a main sequence star.

BS, see above. Please cite the source.


I love that when people talk about alternative energy sources, they always cite solar and wind, the two costliest energy sources out there (especially when you remove the government subsidies). Hydro is renewable, but it blocks the fishies. And nuclear, while highly efficient is everyone's bugaboo.