The Politics of Climate Change From an Insider

Personally, I'm more afraid of a nuclear war than if the average temperature in 100 years will be 1 1/2 degrees warmer.

I consider the possibility of a nuclear war very slim, so yeah me too....

It is now obvious that Climate Change is happening, mostly due to burning fossil fuels, with a relatively large and rapid increase in average global temperatures. With more steam being raised in the atmospheric engine, there is more energy in the system to produce the disruptive and strange weather that we are experiencing. Changes such as sea level rise and desertification will happen more slowly but are likely to be inevitable now. Fossil fuel use also produces air pollution and some early deaths due to this, but this may be less of a problem than overheating beyond what humans can tolerate and agricultural collapse. Switching to using renewable electricity fixes a lot of stuff.

Back in 1936 you would have really freaked out....

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/heat-wave-index-usa

https://ourworldindata.org/crop-yields

I see a correlation between heat wave index and Alcohol Prohibition (1921-1939). Could it be due to the smoke and CO₂ from all those backwoods stills?

The lack of heat waves between the late 50's and late 70's is remarkable, I'm thinking due to all the volcanic activity that took place during that time...

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/JZ067i009p03519

https://volcano.si.edu/faq/index.cfm?question=eruptionsbyyear&checkyear=1960

...or maybe it was just weather patterns changing...

Andy, I see you are embracing most of the thread title with much gusto.

In response to #4, it is NOT at all obvious that climate change is happening, other than the fact that the climate changes all the time. Global temp readings have increased because most weather stations are located at airports, which used to be in rural areas. Urban sprawl has brought the cities with their associated heat to the airports, raising the airport temperatures and skewing the results. The only way to get an accurate global temperature reading is from space, and we haven't had that ability very long.

Fossil fuel use produces air pollution and has caused early deaths? Can you name two people that have died due to air pollution? Just two. Agricultural collapse? But, but, plants breathe CO2. They can't live without it.

Switching to renewable fixes a lot of stuff? Really? Let's take a look at what materials a typical 1 MW wind turbine requires:

Over 400 tons of concrete (LOTS of oil & gas burned to make that)

Over 100 tons of steel (LOTS of oil & gas burned to make that)

20 tons of cast iron (LOTS of oil & gas burned to make that)

7 tons of fiberglass for blades (LOTS of oil & gas burned to make that)

Add to this, the copper, cobalt, rare earth minerals, etc.

Looks like going green is going to use a lot of oil & gas!

And, don't forget that many of these turbine blades have balsa wood cores. Let's cut down all the balsa forests while we're at it!

I'm so glad that going green is going to fix so much stuff!

You left out Aluminum,,, it uses so much power, the electrical cables going to the smelter electrodes actually sways back and forth as the current passes through them.

The presentation by Dr. Moore is worth listening to. Likewise the article on plant respiration and CO2 levels.

If everyone in the world were to have equal access to and use of fossil fuels, this amount would be about 1/10 of our individual rate of usage in the USA and the "developed world", based on numbers I researched in 2003. I believe the same result is valid today. Are we willing to do this? Are alternative fuel sources available in sufficient quantity/quality? Can we change our life-styles enough to do this? I think not.

I don't envisage a "soft landing". This saddens me. --JMM

OMG!!!! What a RIGHT WING piece if crapola psuedo-science that is simple trumpspeak for lying to others when YOU KNOW YOU ARE LYING!!!!!

What happened to NO POLITICS?????????????????????????????????????????????

Bidenomics...

That would be interest on the massive increase in debt during Trumps presidency?

You have a point here but it’s more complicated that that…cost for Climate change is only part of this issue.

if one was to drill it down further, this deficient spending actually start when President Nixon in 1971 suspended the ‘Bretton Woods System’.
Which was brought about after WWII that made the U.S. dollar the standard currency of trade for all country’s. ^{(which I’m not going to get into the reason why)}… Where the world trading country’s uses the dollar was backed by gold where all the country’s could at any time trade the dollar for gold.

What trigger that was that country’s questioned the U.S. didn’t have the gold to back this up, where France started traded the dollar in for gold, and other country’s followed suit. And to stop that Nixon suspended Bretton Woods System. That was over 50 years ago.

IMO, we can never be able to reinstate that because the deficit spending by politicians like a drunk sailor on leave. Because everybody, not just politicians, wants the government to take care of us. ‘Free’ medical care, housing, food, etc…

And now, the currency’s is worth what the governments say it’s worth. Which opens the door to huge deficit spending and corruption by politicians et al… to cover the deficit spending, the governments just prints more paper money, with that same government saying what that paper is worth.

I wish the more liberal CR4 members would weigh in on this to keep this an open discussion. Instead of giving a one slant post to the more conservative CR4 members and then run away.

While there is some truth to that I no longer debate whether the earth is flat... I consider that undebatable science. And those who would debate it?...

I think you missed the point of the flat-Earthers. That is parody poking fun at the very people who say human-caused climate change is not up for debate.

Or any other complex science still under considerable study. If climate change is not debatable, why would we be spending money on its research? Wouldn't that be foolish to spend money studying whether the Earth is flat or round?

To much misinformation… here we have a Nobel Laureate disputing climate change…

The worse thing that happened with open discussion about a topic, it’s the minions that doesn’t not want to hear from anyone who disagrees with their own views,

Enter Politic$… and their minions…

Yep lots of petrodollars paying for disinformation campaigns. And whose dollars?:

https://twitter.com/Greg_Palast/status/1715780700933435492

That’s one example the list is long, I post a link with Soros, but that tends to upset some of our more sensitive one sided members…

Posting one-sided posts supporting liberal agenda’s with links and articles to support it is so much better. Having closed, one sided discussions where people just agree with each other. Just like the dark ages did. Those were really the good old days…

yes, I also don’t show up much here these days… for similar reasons. But I will at times post in response to hypocritical posts. And actually call them out, without hiding behind the facade of an anonymous posters.

But to really get the truth, you do have to hear both sides. Each puts their own spin on it, so if you only hear one side, you only get their spin. Each news consumer has to use the spin filters to get to the bottom of it and must be educated enough to recognize it. Unfortunately, the days of Walter Cronkite and objective journalism are long gone.

Funny, I don't come here very often because of the amount of LIBERAL bias.

You would think that people that claim to be engineers would have some understanding of science and would know better.

They have a right to give their view whether a liberal or conservative slant. It’s an open discussion.

but the hit and run posts or my way or the Highway with what appears to be mental breakdowns and not listen to different points of view is THAT is childish.

Truth is like a highly polished gemstone, its beauty only appears after much effort...debate is the tool, the carborundum used to remove the less substantiated imperfect portions of the stone...

Climate denier or climate embracer?

..."Could global warming be a good thing?

A warmer climate will lower transportation costs: less snow and ice will torment truckers and automobile drivers; fewer winter storms -- bad weather in the summer has less disruptive effects and is over quickly -- will disrupt air travel; a lower incidence of storms and less fog will make water transport less risky.

A rise in world-wide temperatures will go virtually unnoticed by inhabitants of the advanced industrial countries. In his 1991 address to its members, the President of the American Economic Association asserted: "I conclude that in the United States, and probably Japan, Western Europe and other developed countries, the impact on economic output [of global warming] will be negligible and unlikely to be noticed."[10] As modern societies have developed a larger industrial base and become more service oriented, they have grown less dependent on farming, thus boosting their immunity to temperature variations. Warmer weather means, if anything, fewer power outages and less frequent interruptions of wired communications.

Only if warmer weather caused more droughts or lowered agricultural output would even Third World countries suffer. Should the world warm -- and there is little evidence or theory to support such a prognostication -- most climatologists believe that precipitation would increase. Although some areas might become drier, others would become wetter. Judging from history, Western Europe would retain plentiful rainfall, while North Africa and the Sahara might gain moisture. The Midwest of the United States might suffer from less precipitation and become more suitable for cattle grazing than farming. On the other hand, the Southwest would likely become wetter and better for crops.

A warmer climate would produce the greatest gain in temperatures at northern latitudes and much less change near the equator. Not only would this foster a longer growing season and open up new territory for farming but it would mitigate harsh weather. The contrast between the extreme cold near the poles and the warm moist atmosphere on the equator drives storms and much of the earth's climate. This difference propels air flows; if the disparity is reduced, the strength of winds driven by equatorial highs and Arctic lows will be diminished.

Warmer nighttime temperatures, particularly in the spring and fall, create longer growing seasons, which should enhance agricultural productivity. Moreover, the enrichment of the atmosphere with CO2 will fertilize plants and make for more vigorous growth. Agricultural economists studying the relationship of higher temperatures and additional CO2 to crop yields in Canada, Australia, Japan, northern Russia, Finland, and Iceland found not only that a warmer climate would push up yields, but also that the added boost from enriched CO2 would enhance output by 17 percent.[11] Researchers have attributed a burgeoning of forests in Europe to the increased CO2 and the fertilizing effect of nitrogen oxides.[12] Professor of Climatology Robert Pease writes that we may now be living in an "icehouse" world and that a warming of about two degrees Celsius, which is what his model indicates,"

https://web.stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html#:~:text=A%20warmer%20climate%20will%20lower,make%20water%20transport%20less%20risky.

How do you plead?

Siemens-Led Group Completes Test of 100% Renewable Hydrogen in Gas Turbine

“The knowledge and experience gained from the HYFLEXPOWER project where we installed the first gas turbine to run on 100% hydrogen will help us to continue develop our entire gas turbine fleet for a hydrogen-based future,” said Karim Amin, member of the executive board of Siemens Energy. “The interaction between electrolysis, storage, and hydrogen conversion at one site has been impressively demonstrated, and now it’s a matter of scaling the results.”

The hydrogen at the French manufacturing facility is produced by a 1-MW electrolyzer at the site. It is then stored in what Siemens called “an almost one-ton tank and used to power a Siemens Energy SGT-400 industrial gas turbine.” Siemens said the project “demonstrates that hydrogen can be used as a flexible energy storage medium, and that it’s also possible to convert an existing gas-fired power turbine to operate using renewable hydrogen.”

https://www.powermag.com/siemens-led-group-completes-test-of-100-renewable-hydrogen-in-gas-turbine/?

Renewable Hydrogen Production Part of New Toyota System at California Port

FuelCell Energy and Toyota Motor North America said they have completed what the groups call a “Tri-gen” production system at the Port of Long Beach in California. The system, owned by FuelCell Energy and serving Toyota’s operations at the port, will produce electricity from renewable resources, as well as hydrogen, along with water from directed biogas.

The project announced September 7 is Toyota’s first port vehicle processing facility to be powered by renewable energy produced totally onsite. The company said the system provides a model for how fuel cell technology can help reduce emissions from commercial and industrial operations. The system is scalable, and the groups said it could be implemented “in a variety of settings [and] locations.”

“Tri-gen takes various fuels, such as biofuel or renewable natural gas, and converts them into hydrogen, electricity, and water. Its uniqueness lies in its triple functionality, producing three essential elements at once,” said Jason Few, CEO of FuelCell Energy. Few told POWER, “Tri-gen’s versatility allows it to adapt to various industries and regions. Potential applications include warehouses, industrial facilities, and metropolitan areas with hydrogen vehicle fleets. As Tri-gen’s commercial operation begins, it is expected to attract more projects and expand its footprint.”

Toyota has contracted with FuelCell Energy to receive the Tri-gen products under a 20-year purchase agreement.

https://www.powermag.com/renewable-hydrogen-production-part-of-new-toyota-system-at-california-port/?

https://www.cat.com/en_US/by-industry/electric-power/electric-power-industries/hydrogen.html?

Constellation Planning Significant Nuclear-Powered Hydrogen Facility at LaSalle

Constellation Energy will use a portion of newly announced federal funding for the Midwest Hydrogen Hub (MachH2) to build “the world’s largest nuclear-powered clean hydrogen facility” at its 2.3-GW LaSalle Clean Energy Center in Illinois.

The company on Oct. 16 said it plans to leverage a $1 billion award announced by the Department of Energy (DOE) last week for MachH2—a massive hydrogen hub that will integrate projects in several Midwestern states—to produce an estimated 33,450 tons of clean hydrogen each year at LaSalle, its giant nuclear plant in Marseilles, Illinois. The hydrogen hub award, allocated in the November 2021–enacted Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, could “offset” LaSalle’s estimated $900 million costs for the nuclear hydrogen project, it said."...

https://www.powermag.com/constellation-planning-significant-nuclear-powered-hydrogen-facility-at-lasalle/?

The cost and complexity of these systems is not trivial. At some point we have to accept that 100% renewable power is not practical. Ever. This is where nuclear can lend some sanity to all this. Or natural gas. Or coal. Or oil.

But the climate mullahs will never back down.

See #27 above.

On a shorter time scale, I went back to my childhood town in Massachusetts and went to the harbor where we used to jump off the granite block seawall next to the boat ramp. Hingham harbor has 9 foot tides so we usually had to wait for the high tide period otherwise we might hit the bottom. The high tide that I witnessed 50 years later was EXACTLY where it was when I was a 10 year-old punk and we knew every nook and cranny of that wall because we scaled it so many times.

It amazes me to speak with people who I've known for years who dwarf me in intelligence and to find them completely taken in by these climate radicals. If we were to listen to them or our own politicians for that matter, we would all go mad. I seem to remember one politician years ago who basically stated that we would be extinct by the year 2000. By the looks of the world at the moment it would appear that, since that didn't happen, they're trying to force the end of our civilization through "social justice".

If you drill it down further, those same intelligent people you mentioned, the people they fawn over about CG are making huuuge profits. And we’ll defend them at all costs.

Which brings into question, how intelligent are those people, really?

Will defend them at all cost, not ‘we’ll’.

The graph shows climate related deaths are down. But the dialog is that this is due to better warnings. It makes a nice graph (line going down and to the right) but says nothing about the actual severity of weather or climate. Comments?

I consider the reluctance of insurance companies to sell home insurance in some specific areas as a troubling indicator. If there was profit to be made they would be, (always have been), right there to collect more in premiums than they pay in claims. Lately it seems that business model is in some locales “under water”. If it was simply a matter of the development of these locales being more valuable/expensive it would seem that premiums would be increased to keep up with claims. Insurance would be just another cost of a mansion on the beach in Florida or a cabin in the woods in California. But the insurance companies can no longer make money at it so they leave.

Some people will stand strong in their desire to do nothing, stay the status quo, until the time for action, change, is long past. There may be some regrets to the approaches of: first “It’s not happening” then “Even if it is there’s nothing we can do about it”.

Consider: Has the planet reached its carrying capacity in terms of human population?

Consider: How long did it take for the earth’s supply of fossil fuels to be created? How long have we spent burning them? How much longer can we continue to use the supply at the current rates of use and replenishment (That rate is zero. They are extracted, not created, in any sensible geologic definition).

Consider: Some of us will no doubt collect a disproportionate share of the planet’s overall wealth around ourselves. But to do so we will have to go to places where the goodies haven’t been extracted yet and deal with the people who think the goodies belong to them. Of course we’ll take them. And people will die or be killed. My question is will we de-populate down to an actual carrying capacity with some prospect of “living happily ever after” or will we burn it all down squabbling over the scraps we’ve left our children and grandchildren?

Not to mentioned Methane generators that are now being installed on dairy farms.

Not to mentioned Methane generators that are now being installed on dairy farms.

I thought some methane generators--cattle--had been on dairy farms since their beginning!

Yes cattle generate methane… that is the source.

Fossil fuels are already being replaced....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetable_oils_as_alternative_energy