Global Warning/Climate Change

[nett]

[quote=nett post_id=175070 time=1670880404 user_id=10401Ken, I think you've successfully shot yourself in the foot. Why do you liberals always focus on the trendy lunacy that is CO2 driven global warming, instead of focusing on things that are real, and that something can be done about?

I'm not sure what you are talking about with respect to the relationship between CO2 and temperature. We have ice core data tracking both that goes back 420,000 years. This is what they look like. What do you think? Is there a correlation or not? Source: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Vos ... _259791199



In fact, the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and climate is a completely uncontroversial and well documented scientific relationship that goes back to Svante Arrhenius who described the relationship in detail about 120 years ago.

I'm not sure what that link you provided is supposed to prove. It's mostly an unreadable bunch of gibberish.

I should have specified man-made C02 warming. That's a nice correlation you have there, but how do you know the causality isn't reversed? Was it man-made CO2 420,000 years ago?

Tom Murphy of https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/ is a widely respected physics prof at UCSD. If you seriously can't make sense of his blog, maybe you should excuse yourself from this conversation, and let those of us who can at least follow basic math continue the discussion.

[Ken]

[quote=nett post_id=175070 time=1670880404 user_id=10401Ken, I think you've successfully shot yourself in the foot. Why do you liberals always focus on the trendy lunacy that is CO2 driven global warming, instead of focusing on things that are real, and that something can be done about?

I'm not sure what you are talking about with respect to the relationship between CO2 and temperature. We have ice core data tracking both that goes back 420,000 years. This is what they look like. What do you think? Is there a correlation or not? Source: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Vos ... _259791199



In fact, the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and climate is a completely uncontroversial and well documented scientific relationship that goes back to Svante Arrhenius who described the relationship in detail about 120 years ago.

I'm not sure what that link you provided is supposed to prove. It's mostly an unreadable bunch of gibberish.

I should have specified man-made C02 warming. That's a nice correlation you have there, but how do you know the causality isn't reversed? Was it man-made CO2 420,000 years ago?

Tom Murphy of https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/ is a widely respected physics prof at UCSD. If you seriously can't make sense of his blog, maybe you should excuse yourself from this conversation, and let those of us who can at least follow basic math continue the discussion.

The relationship actually does go both ways.

CO2 in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect. That is utterly uncontroversial from a scientific point of view. Other gases do the same thing to lessor or greater degree.

But a warming climate also releases more CO2 into the atmosphere from things like melting of the permafrost.

Why don't you tell us what exact point you think Tom Murphy is making. And why you think it indicts the notion of human-caused climate change.

[nett]

[quote=nett post_id=175070 time=1670880404 user_id=10401Ken, I think you've successfully shot yourself in the foot. Why do you liberals always focus on the trendy lunacy that is CO2 driven global warming, instead of focusing on things that are real, and that something can be done about?

I'm not sure what you are talking about with respect to the relationship between CO2 and temperature. We have ice core data tracking both that goes back 420,000 years. This is what they look like. What do you think? Is there a correlation or not? Source: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Vos ... _259791199



In fact, the relationship between atmospheric CO2 and climate is a completely uncontroversial and well documented scientific relationship that goes back to Svante Arrhenius who described the relationship in detail about 120 years ago.

I'm not sure what that link you provided is supposed to prove. It's mostly an unreadable bunch of gibberish.

I should have specified man-made C02 warming. That's a nice correlation you have there, but how do you know the causality isn't reversed? Was it man-made CO2 420,000 years ago?

Tom Murphy of https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/ is a widely respected physics prof at UCSD. If you seriously can't make sense of his blog, maybe you should excuse yourself from this conversation, and let those of us who can at least follow basic math continue the discussion.

The relationship actually does go both ways.

CO2 in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect. That is utterly uncontroversial from a scientific point of view. Other gases do the same thing to lessor or greater degree.

But a warming climate also releases more CO2 into the atmosphere from things like melting of the permafrost.

Why don't you tell us what exact point you think Tom Murphy is making. And why you think it indicts the notion of human-caused climate change.

If it's a positive feedback loop, then why is that graph cyclical?

My point is that CO2 drive warming is a distraction by the very players who are destroying the planet for their own profit, and well-meaning liberals like yourself play right along. It's been an incredibly effective, textbook example of chaos agent infiltration. You've all been redirected to a meaningless cause that no one can do anything about.

[Ken]

I should have specified man-made C02 warming. That's a nice correlation you have there, but how do you know the causality isn't reversed? Was it man-made CO2 420,000 years ago?

Tom Murphy of https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/ is a widely respected physics prof at UCSD. If you seriously can't make sense of his blog, maybe you should excuse yourself from this conversation, and let those of us who can at least follow basic math continue the discussion.

The relationship actually does go both ways.

CO2 in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect. That is utterly uncontroversial from a scientific point of view. Other gases do the same thing to lessor or greater degree.

But a warming climate also releases more CO2 into the atmosphere from things like melting of the permafrost.

Why don't you tell us what exact point you think Tom Murphy is making. And why you think it indicts the notion of human-caused climate change.

If it's a positive feedback loop, then why is that graph cyclical?

My point is that CO2 drive warming is a distraction by the very players who are destroying the planet for their own profit, and well-meaning liberals like yourself play right along. It's been an incredibly effective, textbook example of chaos agent infiltration. You've all been redirected to a meaningless cause that no one can do anything about.

The climate does go through natural cycles. We are not in a natural cycle. We are in a vastly accelerated man-made cycle. No one would be much worried if the climate was cycling as slowly as the previous geological time cycles represented in that graph where warming and cooling cycles take 100,000 years.

I'm actually fatalistic about it. I don't think human society is going to respond remotely seriously enough to bring us back to anything resembling a natural cycle. So I do what I can to prepare my family and future generations by doing things like move from central Texas to the Pacific Northwest. I also think there is merit all on its own to shift to greener forms of energy. The absolute reduction of urban pollution across the globe during the first months of the pandemic when emissions were greatly curtailed was an eye-opening example that seems to have disappeared down the memory hole for most people. That had nothing to do with CO2 but rather particulate and smog emissions. For example, people in Indian and Chinese cities could actually see the stars for the first time in a generation, and breathe without risk of asthma.

Reading Tom Murphy, the case he actually seems to be making is that there are physical limits to energy usage that we will soon reach and that we need to drastically reduce our wanton usage of fossil fuels. He doesn't seem to be saying anything at all about climate science. At least from this interview: https://today.ucsd.edu/story/a-textbook ... ary-limits

One thing he doesn't actually talk about is efficiency. Appliances like refrigerators, air conditioners, and washing machines are 4-5 times more efficient than their counterparts from 40-50 years ago. New magnetic induction cooktops are far more efficient than old electric or gas ranges. Cars are also 4-5 times more efficient for a vehicle of comparable size and horsepower as one from the 1960s. Houses are also dramatically more efficient in many ways from insulation to heating. So we are making a lot of progress. So in that respect I'm actually pretty optimistic about human ingenuity and the future.

What point of his do you actually think relates to climate change?

[Soloist]

One thing he doesn't actually talk about is efficiency. Appliances like refrigerators, air conditioners, and washing machines are 4-5 times more efficient than their counterparts from 40-50 years ago. New magnetic induction cooktops are far more efficient than old electric or gas ranges. Cars are also 4-5 times more efficient for a vehicle of comparable size and horsepower as one from the 1960s. Houses are also dramatically more efficient in many ways from insulation to heating. So we are making a lot of progress. So in that respect I'm actually pretty optimistic about human ingenuity and the future.

Now it’s great to increase efficiency but not at the cost of durability… just look at Americans in general… we have a use and replace mentality and as long as that is the name of the game, nothing done will really slow or stop a hypothetical climate change.

[Ken]

One thing he doesn't actually talk about is efficiency. Appliances like refrigerators, air conditioners, and washing machines are 4-5 times more efficient than their counterparts from 40-50 years ago. New magnetic induction cooktops are far more efficient than old electric or gas ranges. Cars are also 4-5 times more efficient for a vehicle of comparable size and horsepower as one from the 1960s. Houses are also dramatically more efficient in many ways from insulation to heating. So we are making a lot of progress. So in that respect I'm actually pretty optimistic about human ingenuity and the future.

Now it’s great to increase efficiency but not at the cost of durability… just look at Americans in general… we have a use and replace mentality and as long as that is the name of the game, nothing done will really slow or stop a hypothetical climate change.

Modern cars are not only vastly more efficient. They also last much longer.

[Soloist]

Modern cars are not only vastly more efficient. They also last much longer.

How would you know this? And what are you calling modern by year?

[Ken]

Modern cars are not only vastly more efficient. They also last much longer.

How would you know this? And what are you calling modern by year?

Modern cars (within say the past 10 years or even the past 20 years) can go for 100,000 miles with barely anything more than an oil change every 10,000 miles or so if you are using synthetic oil. And then they are still tight as a drum if taken care of and not abused. Both our two cars have over 100,000 miles and they still basically drive like new. I haven't done anything to either of them except change the oil and replace a faulty door actuator one one of them. Cars today are engineered for 200,000 to 300,000 miles.

By contrast, cars in the 60s and into the 70s were often rattly buckets of junk by 100,000 miles and that was their design life. The first car I drove was a 1964 Chevy Nova with a straight 6 engine that got about 15 mpg and by the time it hit 100,000 nearly everything was going wrong with it from blown head gasket to blown thermostat to endless carburetor and ignition problems. Oh, and wheel bearings, tie rods, and brake line issues. It was rusting out and falling apart and we didn't even live where they salt the roads in winter.

In the 1960s a 5 year old car with 80,000 miles was considered getting old and people didn't keep them much past 100,000 miles unless they were really poor. In the 1960s the average age of a car on the road was 5 years old.

I got rid of my last car (a Toyota Sienna) at 288,000 miles and 14 years old. The average age of a car on the road today is 12.2 years which is more than double what it was in the 1960s.

[ohio jones]

Now it’s great to increase efficiency but not at the cost of durability… just look at Americans in general… we have a use and replace mentality and as long as that is the name of the game, nothing done will really slow or stop a hypothetical climate change.

Modern cars are not only vastly more efficient. They also last much longer.

Cars, yes. Appliances, and a lot of other things, not really.

AC Then and Now.png (108.89 KiB) Viewed 655 times

[Ken]

Now it’s great to increase efficiency but not at the cost of durability… just look at Americans in general… we have a use and replace mentality and as long as that is the name of the game, nothing done will really slow or stop a hypothetical climate change.

Modern cars are not only vastly more efficient. They also last much longer.

Cars, yes. Appliances, and a lot of other things, not really.


AC Then and Now.png

Of course you shouldn't be putting a window unit AC in a modern house anyway. You should be putting in a heat pump which is much more efficient and will both heat and cool. They typically last several decades.

You also get what you pay for. I have an 18 year old furnace that could use replacement at some point with a more modern heat pump. There is a wide range in quality and price and you can get more expensive models with long warranties or cheaper models with shorter ones. A lot (most) new houses are built with cheaper "builder grade" models because the builders don't care and want more profit. But you don't have to put in cheap appliances. There are high quality products out there too.