eagleye13 Loc: Fl

"Climate change is a natural occurring event.. Global warming if you wish, being the same as climate change is also a natural occurring event. CO2 is needed just as much as the left climate change scare tactic people want to claim is so bad.."
Good points LJ!
It seems liberals are incapable or unwilling to think things through.

BTW; Are you aware that some people still think Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated JFK?

www.orwelltoday.com/jfkoswaldmagicroute.shtml

Cuda2020

I've been here for awhile, and have presented facts many, many times, from evidence from the water, the air and wildlife all to no avail. What I've learned from Trump followers is that it is a complete waste of time.You're right, straight up is still willing, but he'll learn as I have, he's just still hopeful that someone will see the evidence and the light, Your side has proven to me otherwise. Your opinion is all I've seen here and is less then credible.
The idiocy I see from the right to fight these endeavors rather than support in order to get a handle on the issue but they/you rather follow the cues of the propaganda put out by the for profit corporations and continue to deregulate... is beyond reason.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

If you had your way, Bacarruda; the USA would still be dependent on OPEC for our energy needs.

What do you think we would be paying for Gasoline and electricity?

Does it matter?

Cuda2020

I see, so we can send people to the moon, but don't know how to warm up oil. LOL It's true wind turbines are not ideal in the frigid cold, Ice can also build up on the blades, but for a good portion of the country they work just fine. But solar works great in the cold.

Cuda2020

LOL you're so backward. Which side is pro OPEC? LOL

America 1 Loc: South Miami

In your fantasy world everything you spew out is "credible".
Dump your liberal democrats and witness positive change.
Rather than burning cities and states.
Looting, destroying of property, and our history.

EmilyD

Wind turbines use electricity to operate. And in northern climates also need blade heaters to prevent icing. These heaters can consume up to 20% of a turbine’s rated power output. Some of them also need dehumidifiers and heaters in their nacelles. And then there are the times when there is low to no wind. And they may need to use their generators as motors to help get the blades turning...more electricity. They just aren't as efficient and productive as first thought.

Solar power is expensive to install (starting around $10,000 for a small house and up depending on how many panels you purchase), unless you do it yourself. And then you have to meet building codes and obtain permits to do so - also not cheap. And there is also maintenance. The panels become dirty with exposure to weather and have to be washed, like window panels. Solar companies will tell you that you don't need to do that too often, but a man down the street who has solar energy told me he has to do it a couple of times a year. I guess you could wait until the warmer weather to do that, but if you can't, electricity production decreases and you have to find alternative ways to keep warm when it's -20F outside in January in upstate Michigan, or Wisconsin or New England... And they will also need technical maintenance periodically, which can be costly.

eagleye13 Loc: Fl

A lot of good sources, Blade_Runner

Some keepers for future reference.

https://realclimatescience.com/61-fake-data
https://realclimatescience.com/accelerating-sea-level-fraud-in-climate-science/ ]Accelerating Sea Level Fraud
https://realclimatescience.com/arctic-sea-ice-unchanged-from-60-years-ago/
https://realclimatescience.com/climate-scientists-rewriting-the-past/ Climate Scientists Rewriting The Past[/url]

https://realclimatescience.com/corruption-of-the-us-temperature-record/ Corruption Of The US Temperature Record[/url]

Doubling The Hockey Stick Fraud
https://realclimatescience.com/erasing-americas-hot-past/ Erasing America’s Hot Past[/url]

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

There is a huge solar wind farm north of Corpus Christi Texas. It was built with US taxpayer money, a LOT of it, and with the taxpayers providing operating subsidies for a number of years, and with the owners taking over all financial responsibility once it was operational and profitable. The owners never have to pay back the cost of building the hundreds of turbines. Guess what? I'm sure you do not have to. In an area that has ideal wind conditions for wind turbines, the company does not make enough profit to stay in business, even with zero original construction cost liability. So the government reluctantly agreed to continue the subsidies. The only other option was for the owner/operators to declare bankruptcy, and we would lose our 'investment'. As far as I'm aware, we are still paying subsidies to keep our pretty tall toys operating.
LOL. And these are the government bureaucrats that Obama/Biden wanted to guide and direct all our scientific research dollars. I expect that Biden/Harris has the same plan. No thank you. Neither wind nor solar are viable yet. Someday I hope they will be, but not yet.
I am all for alternate energy. Let's invest the money, develop it to functionality and affordability, and start using it. Let's get rid of using fossil fuels for power generation, and reserve it for plastics and other non-polluting uses. But let's NOT put the horse before the cart. Functional and affordable FIRST.

Cuda2020

Yes climate change is a natural event, but the added increase of carbon by man is not. We tip those scales and tipped they have been for some time.

As to the natural occurring fires in Cal.
http://www.fire.ca.gov/stats-events/

January 1, 2019 through August 30, 2019 3,673
January 1, 2020 through August 30, 2020 5,924
2020 Combined YTD (CALFIRE & US Forest Service) 7,335

This is not a natural state. This is a man made created state. Numbers and facts

Cuda2020

They use little energy to run for the energy they get from the wind and generate. Some interesting Facts
http://www.awea.org/wind-101/basics-of-wind-energy/wind-facts-at-a-glance

Solar power initial cost may seem high, but after that it's on auto pilot generating energy.

There are other sources of power besides solar and wind turbines.

HISTORICALLY, this energy has been generated in Greenland by diesel-driven power plants, which require costly imports of fossil fuel and are the biggest single contributor to the island’s greenhouse gas emissions.

In recent years, however, Greenland has been replacing its diesel power plants with hydropower plants – using its vast resources of glacial meltwater to generate lower cost hydropower and reduce the country’s fuel imports and greenhouse gas emissions.

The latest of these renewable energy projects is a 22.5 megawatt (MW) hydropower plant for the town of Ilulissat on the west coast, the third largest community in Greenland with a population of 4,541 as of 2013. The plant replaces an existing diesel-driven power plant and will provide electricity for the town and the local district heating network.

My question is why be against them? Why not support the endeavor to help the planet?

straightUp Loc: California

Thanks for the data Randy. As we can see, the temperature *IS* increasing. But I don't think anyone is arguing that point anymore, right? The debate now seems to have shifted to "well yeah, global warming is real but is it anthropogenic?"

Still, I want to point something out in your data that I think is important to understand...

Look at the differences from one decade to the next... I'll draw it out for you... here's the same data converted to expressions of percentage increase from one decade to the next.



From here we can get the sum totals...
Total increase: 2.70%
Total decrease: -0.25%
Total difference: 2.45%

But the real significance isn't just that temperatures have increased by 2.45% it's the WAY it's increasing. The temperature increase for the last two decades in the dataset is significantly higher than any of the previous decades indicating an increase in the rate of acceleration.

Did you see that when you looked at that data before you posted it? I know, a lot of people glance at the numbers and see two things... The numbers appear small and there are decreases as well as increases. That makes it easy to think of the data as nominal, but when you look closer and find patterns you find more significance.

BTW, the last decade is missing from your dataset so I'm going to add it to see if that makes things more obvious. I can't find the average global mean temperature for the 2010 decade, so I will have to calculate that myself using the annual reports from NOAA.

And here it is...


Yup, still going up and it IS accelerating... exponentially. The total increase from 1880 to 2019 is 3.38%, minus the total decrease, we're at 3.14%. So now let's look at the running totals.



Now are you starting to see the picture? This is still coming from the data you provided. But now we can see that it took 100 years to see an increase of at least 1%. The very next decade it was already past 2% and one decade later we're past 3%.

This is what Al Gore was referring to with his hockey stick analogy. He wasn't wrong. Your data proves it.

Still not alarmed? Is that because a mean temperature of 58'F really doesn't seem like a big deal, especially since it took 140 years to get there from 56'F?

A few more things to explain then...

1. The median global temperature is the mid-point between the extremes across many different climates, not all of which are affected equally. So a 2% increase in the median temperature could mean the temperature drops by 2% in some climates and increases by 4% in others.

2. It's not a simple matter of how the temperature feels when you walk outside. There are certain thresholds in the spectrum where a 1 degree change makes all the difference. For instance, water is frozen into solid ice at 32'F. At 33'F it melts into liquid water. Different liquids have various, specific boiling points.

So, elements CAN be affected by a 1 degree change, which means all the complex systems built on top of them can also be affected by a 1 degree change, including weather systems, food chains, malaria zones... all kinds of stuff and the repercussions go far and wide, like how a 2% increase in global mean temp causes prolonged droughts and record-breaking heat in the westerns states which creates more flammable material in the underbrush which feeds more intense fires, which kills more people.

straightUp Loc: California

That's pretty vague... What exactly is a crap hole? Or are you just venting your general distaste for liberals?


Sounds good to me. Better yet, we can relax the idiot immigration laws, so most of them won't even be illegal! It's a great idea!


I'm glad you can at least see the beauty and the variety. But it seems you're on the wrong side if you wish to preserve that beauty. Right now the state looks like hell because of the massive fires caused by the drought caused by the climate change caused by global warming caused by emissions defended by Republicans.

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

Sorry. If your number and facts are correct (not stipulating they are, except for discussion) they only
indicate that there have been an increasing number of fires in California. Your statement includes the supposition that manmade actions have caused a temperature increase (unproven) and also that the said temperature increase has caused more plants to die (also unproven), adding to the available fuel (also unproven) causing more fires and increased number of fires. To many assumptions to be valid science.

RandyBrian Loc: Texas

Not against it. To repeat myself:
Neither wind nor solar are viable yet. Someday I hope they will be, but not yet.
I am all for alternate energy. Let's invest the money, develop it to functionality and affordability, and start using it. Let's get rid of using fossil fuels for power generation, and reserve it for plastics and other non-polluting uses. But let's NOT put the horse before the cart. Functional and affordable FIRST.