Earth's Temperature

[mstateglfr]

Here you go... Biden told Iowa corn farmers he'd allow for an increase in the sale of ethanol-based gas last summer and environmentalists were unhappy about it. Just based on this article, it seems like climate activists are coming around to the idea that ethanol is bad. Maybe you just haven't been paying attention.

Living amongst the corn and beans, ethanol is a really interesting issue to step back and view.
- It takes more energy to create than it produces, apparently.
- It delays transitioning to more efficient energy use, apparently.
- It costs the state a bunch of money since there is a subsidy at the pump to use it.
- Our old as balls Senator holds way too much power and influence, which perpetuates the lack of progress.
- Farmers here, who are now largely conservative as a voting block, want that federal money for the crop they grow and clearly money overrides ideology.


Its a really complex and intertwined issue.

 

[thekimmer]

Ok Here is why we have global warming:

Increased CO2 in the atmosphere, increases the Global Temperature.
CO2, Methane, and ozone Absorb Infrared Radiation (heat).

Therefore, MORE of those in the atmosphere means more heat.


Since Humans started burning Coal, Petroleum, and natural gas on a large scale, We have been taking carbon that was locked away in the earth crust for up to 560 million years.

The reason the OP's chart goes from VERY hot 560 million years ago to cold so quickly is because trees were first formed then. But, the mold that breaks down lignin and cellulose did not exist until 250 million years ago. all of that time trees and woody plants that died, didn't decay. They made coal.

Oil and gas deposits are defined by when in the past they oil layers were formed. Permian basin, 300 million years ago to 250 million years ago. Paleogene 66 million years ago and 23 Mya. Eocene 56 million years ago - 33.9 million years ago. Miocene 23.03 to 5.333 Mya.

Humans came along about 800,000 to 300,000 years ago.

Now to the chart above. During the time when all that carbon was trapped, was the earth much warmer?

We are releasing Carbon that was trapped away for millions to 100's of millions of years. and when it was captured before the earth was hotter. Why do you not think it will be hotter when we put it back into the atmosphere?

And so what it we do? If you look at this from a purely scientific perspective, do humans have any other choice but to behave in the way evolution has programmed us to even if that eventually leads us to one day unleashing the entire nuclear arsenal that wipes out most life on the planet? And that then human history would simply become just a blip on the timeline of earth's history.

Or, I would submit that humanity is set apart from the rest of the natural world because they were uniquely created by a supreme being with an intelligent design. I also submit that this reality is so compelling that even atheistic science tacitly recognizes this in how it clearly views humans as a separate entity from nature.

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

It's already occurring, Bruce. Merely one example is the intensity of rainfall in hurricanes due to oceans being warmer.

No actual proof of that. Too many charts to post from NOAA and Weather Underground that show numbers and energy is pretty spread out. There have been Hurricanes forever and they go through cycles like everything else. This is the perfect example of when it snows in June and "deniers" point that out and are told you can't associate weather to global warming. However anytime a natural disaster happens it is blamed on global warming.

 

[dorndawg]

No actual proof of that. Too many charts to post from NOAA and Weather Underground that show numbers and energy is pretty spread out. There have been Hurricanes forever and they go through cycles like everything else. This is the perfect example of when it snows in June and "deniers" point that out and are told you can't associate weather to global warming. However anytime a natural disaster happens it is blamed on global warming.

lol

 

[thatsbaseball]

This is one area that I would like to know more about . Many large nations are making huge efforts to diversify their sources of energy but they all seem to be including nuclear where we are not. Why ?

Plans For New Reactors Worldwide - World Nuclear Association

Nuclear power capacity worldwide is increasing steadily. Most reactors under construction are in the Asian region. Significant further capacity is being created by plant uprating.

world-nuclear.org

 

[FQDawg]

No actual proof of that. Too many charts to post from NOAA and Weather Underground that show numbers and energy is pretty spread out. There have been Hurricanes forever and they go through cycles like everything else. This is the perfect example of when it snows in June and "deniers" point that out and are told you can't associate weather to global warming. However anytime a natural disaster happens it is blamed on global warming.

When is the last time in snowed in June? And yes, there is a difference between weather and climate.

You mentioned NOAA. I was just there and on the National Weather Service looking at tornado data.

This is recorded tornados in Alabama from 1950-2022. The interesting thing to me is that before 2000, they'd only had one year with 50 tornados. Since 2000, they've had 15 years with at least 50 tornados. You can see that the number of tornados is increasing.



For Mississippi over the same time period (1950-2022), it looks like a similar story. Don't know why the graphs are so different when they came from the same organization but you can still see the number of tornados trending up.


And just for the hell of it, I looked at nationwide data for the same 1950-2022 time period. It was in an excel file, so I had to graph it myself but the trend is the same... more tornados.



I'm sure we'll all argue about why this is the case but you can't realistically say that there's no proof of an increase in climate-related severe weather.

 

[Boom Boom]

Why is hotter a bad thing? That is the question. There was life on earth for many of those years you talk about that were hotter.

As I said it is the disaster apocalypse that is the issue. Why do we believe all the disaster talk where there is no verifiable proof that any of that is going to occur. That is kinda like if you don't follow Jesus you are going to hell crowd

Because biomes will collapse. There's not really much debate that that will happen if temps increase like predicted. And a collapse of biomes would be really bad.

 

[ChE1997]

This is what I find intriguing. Atheistic science that rejects the the notion of a creator, would tell you that all species tend to exhibit predictable behavior that is just part of their nature, but then they turn around and treat humans like they are some kind of alien invader that is not part of nature and is actually at war with 'the natural world' instead of a part of it. If you accept their precepts then why aren't humans just a part of the same natural system in which the same rules apply? Human behavior is thus also as just as predictable as any other species and thus, no matter how it manifests itself, that behavior, and the consequences of it, are just as much a part of nature, and the earth's evolution, as any anything else. Regarding the predictability of human behavior, I'd say history also tends to support this notion.

Oddly enough, the manner in which atheistic science views humans as as this separate, unique, entity that has a bent toward evil and self destruction, is actually closer to how religion and particularly Christianity views humans.

Wow "Atheistic Science"?

Or Humans are unique ( I think the bible mentions this) in their ability among other life on earth to make dramatic changes to the environment.

I mean we didn't just let beaver build the Mississippi river levees...

 

[ChE1997]

Why is hotter a bad thing? That is the question. There was life on earth for many of those years you talk about that were hotter.

As I said it is the disaster apocalypse that is the issue. Why do we believe all the disaster talk where there is no verifiable proof that any of that is going to occur. That is kinda like if you don't follow Jesus you are going to hell crowd.

Were there Humans?

If I was a 6 ft dragonfly, or a dinosaur, I might be happy.

I'm a human, and we didn't exist until millions of years after the earth was that hot. And neither did any of our food.

 

[dorndawg]

This is one area that I would like to know more about . Many large nations are making huge efforts to diversify their sources of energy but they all seem to be including nuclear where we are not. Why ?

Plans For New Reactors Worldwide - World Nuclear Association

Nuclear power capacity worldwide is increasing steadily. Most reactors under construction are in the Asian region. Significant further capacity is being created by plant uprating.

world-nuclear.org

My sense is it is two-fold: a) it takes forever to build large infrastructure here anymore, and the costs are preposterous. I believe I read that to build a large nuclear plant in USA today, it would take 10 years and cost nearly $10 billion. The reasons for this are varied but it's gotten ridiculous. Which, seems like a bargain when you consider a college dorm costs almost $100M apparently. b) there are still some who vehemently oppose nuclear power ( and it does have drawbacks).

IMO, it's the least-bad option.

 

[MagnoliaHunter]

Put non-ethanol in your tank and run it out and then repeat with gasoline containing 10% ethanol in your tank. You’ll get 10% less gas mileage with the 10% added ethanol gas. Do the math and tell me how much the ethanol helps. If it helps, the government can give me a $50billion grant to do the math. I just want to help.

Random note from racing karts on ethanol. 100% ethanol will use about twice as much fuel and product about 1/4 more HP and run the engine cooler.

Also, enzymes are used to break down the starting product such as corn to ethanol. A few years ago, MSU was working on developing enzymes to break down kudzu to ethanol. I haven't heard lately on how that was going. Does anybody know?

 

[The Cooterpoot]

And now we have gotten to the 'don't worry, God has a plan' claim.
We all can just do whatever the 17 we want to the planet, it's cool since God created it in 16 years and will swoop in and intervene.

This is so disconnected from reality it is difficult to even respond to.
Oh, and did you really just post that while the earth was created in 16 days, multiple big bangs took place? What?!

I mean, didn't God tell us this place will burn up? Why yes, yes he did.

 

[ChE1997]

And so what it we do? If you look at this from a purely scientific perspective, do humans have any other choice but to behave in the way evolution has programmed us to even if that eventually leads us to one day unleashing the entire nuclear arsenal that wipes out most life on the planet? And that then human history would simply become just a blip on the timeline of earth's history.

Or, I would submit that humanity is set apart from the rest of the natural world because they were uniquely created by a supreme being with an intelligent design. I also submit that this reality is so compelling that even atheistic science tacitly recognizes this in how it clearly views humans as a separate entity from nature.

I submit that God gave us the ability to discover new things. among them is to be able to get power from the sun, the wind, and the atom. if we use those as primary power, instead of carbon trapped for 100,000's of millions of years, we can survive longer as a populace.

But you don't think the 100,000's of millions of years is a real number. So i'll never get you to agree that the earth bing that hot then was a problem...

 

[ChE1997]

My sense is it is two-fold: a) it takes forever to build large infrastructure here anymore, and the costs are preposterous. I believe I read that to build a large nuclear plant in USA today, it would take 10 years and cost nearly $10 billion. The reasons for this are varied but it's gotten ridiculous. Which, seems like a bargain when you consider a college dorm costs almost $100M apparently. b) there are still some who vehemently oppose nuclear power ( and it does have drawbacks).

IMO, it's the least-bad option.

Because the general populace is terrified of nuclear. They think it's all going to kill them.

None of them know that the coal plant in Choctaw County puts out more radiation than Grand Gulf ever will.

 

[dorndawg]

Because the general populace is terrified of nuclear. They think it's all going to kill them.

None of them know that the coal plant in Choctaw County puts out more radiation than Grand Gulf ever will.

It's very likely you know more about it, but my sense is the cost is what is stopping more from being built, more so than public fears.

 

[ChE1997]

To me, the solution is to use Nuclear Energy and Natural Gas in conjunction to wind, solar, etc.

This is the solution. Natural gas is a transition (for the next 50-80 years).

We will also not get away from liquid hydrocarbon as fuel for some things (flight, ships,etc.). The source will be different. Likely biological or some sort of air captured carbon conversion

 

[jethreauxdawg]

A few years ago, MSU was working on developing enzymes to break down kudzu to ethanol. I haven't heard lately on how that was going. Does anybody know?

Wait a minute, if ethanol can get rid of kudzu, I might take back everything negative I’ve said about it.

 

[mstateglfr]

I mean, didn't God tell us this place will burn up? Why yes, yes he did.

Did He? Or did we say He did?

 

[thatsbaseball]

It's very likely you know more about it, but my sense is the cost is what is stopping more from being built, more so than public fears.

Not arguing because I don't know but my (very naïve) two questions 1) why do these other countries think it is cost effective and we do not and 2) are they just economically better able to afford than us ?

Also ten years to build is quite a long time but isn't that a fairly reasonable time frame in making the huge transition away from so many carbon fuels ?

 

[Cantdoitsal]

Just a few follow up questions:

What exact "real harm" has been done by U.S. climate policy?

Who exactly has been dying as a result of U.S. climate policy?

How exactly has climate policy ruined the economy?

Has U.S. climate policy actually hampered our ability to field a military? If so, how?

All these hundreds of Billions being sucked out of our treasury and others around the world making the global elites richer and more powerful at the expense of the tax payers orchestrated by politicians who benefit financially by being the money brokers while also pumping the propaganda keeping the money train running. And us Tax Slaves pay for it and in return all we get is inflated prices and a lower standard of living.

 

[jethreauxdawg]

Here you go... Biden told Iowa corn farmers he'd allow for an increase in the sale of ethanol-based gas last summer and environmentalists were unhappy about it. Just based on this article, it seems like climate activists are coming around to the idea that ethanol is bad. Maybe you just haven't been paying attention.

I’d like to see them call for getting rid of ethanol, but I’ll take that as a step in the right direction. I’m glad you agree with me. I’m also glad billions were able to be spent on studies to support what I figured out with a $70 tank of 10% ethanol gas. If I can just figure out which politician’s kid I can partner with to repeat my study for a few million government grant bucks, we might be able to save this planet.

 

[greenbean.sixpack]

clearly money overrides ideology.

 

[Cantdoitsal]

I don't know what China and Russia are doing but we do not spend nearly as much on climate mitigation as we should. Thankfully we are increasing that spending over the next decade but we're way short of where we need to be.

Ton of BS there.

 

[dorndawg]

Not arguing because I don't know but my (very naïve) two questions 1) why do these other countries think it is cost effective and we do not and 2) are they just economically better able to afford than us ?

Also ten years to build is quite a long time but isn't that a fairly reasonable time frame in making the huge transition away from so many carbon fuels ?

1) I don't think it's costing that much in other countries. My hypothesis is that a) they simply don't have the litigious environment we do which drives up costs and b) the construction is done by gov't-owned orgs and/or companies who don't have bought-and-paid for pols to drive up costs
2) No but their opportunity cost is different b/c most of them don't have a ton of fossil fuels or for that matter vast land areas suitable for solar/wind as an alternative.

 

[greenbean.sixpack]

When is the last time in snowed in June? And yes, there is a difference between weather and climate.

You mentioned NOAA. I was just there and on the National Weather Service looking at tornado data.

This is recorded tornados in Alabama from 1950-2022. The interesting thing to me is that before 2000, they'd only had one year with 50 tornados. Since 2000, they've had 15 years with at least 50 tornados. You can see that the number of tornados is increasing.

View attachment 352170

For Mississippi over the same time period (1950-2022), it looks like a similar story. Don't know why the graphs are so different when they came from the same organization but you can still see the number of tornados trending up.

View attachment 352172
And just for the hell of it, I looked at nationwide data for the same 1950-2022 time period. It was in an excel file, so I had to graph it myself but the trend is the same... more tornados.

View attachment 352173

I'm sure we'll all argue about why this is the case but you can't realistically say that there's no proof of an increase in climate-related severe weather.

I'm not on either side on this issue, but one thing you have to accept is that some of the historical data is sus. A tornado touches down in rural Webster County in the 50s it is likely never recorded or investigated. In the 70s, a tornado damaged my grandfather's house and destroyed a barn and several other buildings, no one ever came to investigate or document. Technology, camera phones, the emergence of "Storm Chasers" and social media has made the reporting and documentation of these events much more common.

 

[HRMSU]

I literally said I’m aware of CA not worried about me in MS. That’s it. You then linked an article about CA.

Did you not read the article? It literally talks about it spreading to other States and local governments. Geese.....you are either choosing to be naive or purposely ignoring the potential spread of this idiotic policy.

 

[ChE1997]

It's very likely you know more about it, but my sense is the cost is what is stopping more from being built, more so than public fears.

The cost is a function of the public fear. so many extra safety protocols that extended the schedule and drive up the costs.

Meanwhile, we have 83 nuclear-powered ships: 72 submarines, 10 aircraft carriers and one research vessel in the US Navy

 

[ChE1997]

All these hundreds of Billions being sucked out of our treasury and others around the world making the global elites richer and more powerful at the expense of the tax payers orchestrated by politicians who benefit financially by being the money brokers while also pumping the propaganda keeping the money train running. And us Tax Slaves pay for it and in return all we get is inflated prices and a lower standard of living.

This is a different issue than climate change.

And something is going to have to give. Historically, it's either a huge policy change, or the rich start getting killed en mass.

 

[Negative Waves]

The cost is a function of the public fear. so many extra safety protocols that extended the schedule and drive up the costs.

Meanwhile, we have 83 nuclear-powered ships: 72 submarines, 10 aircraft carriers and one research vessel in the US Navy

If we were truly serious about climate change, we'd be building new nuclear power plants left and right. It's clean, reliable, and we have over 70 years of experience with the technology. Even the nuclear waste could be reused as nuclear tech improves. It's frustrating that the NIMBY's and the crazies who think of Chernobyl every time they hear the word nuclear are the one's controlling the issue.

Another major environmental issue that is concerning is the over-fishing of the oceans, especially by the Chinese. Their fishing fleets are causing immense harm throughout the Pacific right now.

 

[HRMSU]

This is what I find intriguing. Atheistic science that rejects the the notion of a creator, would tell you that all species tend to exhibit predictable behavior that is just part of their nature, but then they turn around and treat humans like they are some kind of alien invader that is not part of nature and is actually at war with 'the natural world' instead of a part of it. If you accept their precepts then why aren't humans just a part of the same natural system in which the same rules apply? Human behavior is thus also as just as predictable as any other species and thus, no matter how it manifests itself, that behavior, and the consequences of it, are just as much a part of nature, and the earth's evolution, as any anything else. Regarding the predictability of human behavior, I'd say history also tends to support this notion.

Oddly enough, the manner in which atheistic science views humans as as this separate, unique, entity that has a bent toward evil and self destruction, is actually closer to how religion and particularly Christianity views humans.

Because leaders of the hard core climate movement have turned it into a religion. The earth is their God and man is destructive and evil unless they buy into their religious dogma of overpopulation, green energy and saving the planet. It's a freakin cult rooted in Marxist principles.

 

[FQDawg]

I’d like to see them call for getting rid of ethanol, but I’ll take that as a step in the right direction. I’m glad you agree with me. I’m also glad billions were able to be spent on studies to support what I figured out with a $70 tank of 10% ethanol gas. If I can just figure out which politician’s kid I can partner with to repeat my study for a few million government grant bucks, we might be able to save this planet.

I wouldn't say I 100% agree with you. Your end use of a tank of ethanol gas isn't remotely the whole story when it comes to potential benefits/drawbacks to something as massive and multi-faceted as energy production. As I mentioned yesterday, there seem to be some conflicting studies about ethanol out there. I read a lot of stuff about a lot of stuff but I haven't pored over all those various studies in any great detail. So I'll concede that what little knowledge I have about ethanol may be out of date. And I am always willing to read new info and change my views on things.

**Besides, I just do what Greta Thunberg and Al Gore tell me to do.**

 

[dorndawg]

The cost is a function of the public fear. so many extra safety protocols that extended the schedule and drive up the costs.

Meanwhile, we have 83 nuclear-powered ships: 72 submarines, 10 aircraft carriers and one research vessel in the US Navy

Yeah that's certainly probably true, which goes hand in hand with the litigiousness of American society (which is a whole different thread).

 

[FQDawg]

I'm not on either side on this issue, but one thing you have to accept is that some of the historical data is sus. A tornado touches down in rural Webster County in the 50s it is likely never recorded or investigated. In the 70s, a tornado damaged my grandfather's house and destroyed a barn and several other buildings, no one ever came to investigate or document. Technology, camera phones, the emergence of "Storm Chasers" and social media has made the reporting and documentation of these events much more common.

Totally fair point. Though I do think you can see a noticeable rise on those graphs in the 80s and 90s even before camera phones and social media became more prevalent.

 

[ChE1997]

If we were truly serious about climate change, we'd be building new nuclear power plants left and right. It's clean, reliable, and we have over 70 years of experience with the technology. Even the nuclear waste could be reused as nuclear tech improves. It's frustrating that the NIMBY's and the crazies who think of Chernobyl every time they hear the word nuclear are the one's controlling the issue.

Another major environmental issue that is concerning is the over-fishing of the oceans, especially by the Chinese. Their fishing fleets are causing immense harm throughout the Pacific right now.

I completely agree. If I had control I build a standard designed, identical, 500MW to 10 GW gen IV powerplants as a 80-90% energy baseload all over the country.

 

[HRMSU]

Its the 3rd world countries(not in the classic coldwar sense, but in the modern 'that is an undeveloped/underdeveloped country' sense) that seem to pollute at a really high % per person rate.
- lower income countries typically have more relaxed air quality and vehicle emissions laws.
- lower income countries burn more wood for fuel, heat, etc.
- lower income countries often have power plants that lack the level of air pollution controls that are in higher income country power plants.
- lower income countries often have poor waste management infrastructure. Physical garbage, industrial waste, human waste- all are often not managed as well and destroy rivers, lakes, and air quality.


And yet as a counter to what I just posted, which is info based on actual reality, there is this from PBS- https://www.pbs.org/newshour/scienc...mate-vulnerable-heres-what-they-want-at-cop27


No real point to me posting this, your comment just made me think about how each situation is different. India is different from DRC which is different from Haiti which is different from Russia which is different from Australia.
As for if Russia really is collapsing...I have no idea. I cant sort out what is actually happening vs what people hope will happen. Sanctions have hurt Russia, but weapons production has helped Russia. Apparently unemployment is at its lowest point in years there too. But then there is the reality that what can we actually trust when it comes to Russian info? Is Russia lying about their economy? Do economists not have the full scope of Russia's economy and they are essentially working with bad data?
I have no idea.

There is a correlation between income levels and pollution. If you are just trying to survive then pollution and the environment kind of take a back seat to eating.

Now, if more people were able to be lifted out of extreme poverty then naturally the correlation would say pollution would go down and probably by a greater magnitude than what we are trying to do in developed nations. How do you do that? You provide an all in energy policy (everything)until you can go 100% green. You don't just shove green down everybody's throat especially countries who have no chance of being successful right now with premature green alternatives.

 

[dorndawg]

I completely agree. If I had control I build a standard designed, identical, 500MW to 10 GW gen IV powerplants as a 80-90% energy baseload all over the country.

Don't you have to have a pretty massive amount of water for these type plants? Not saying you're not right, just that it severely limits where they can be built. Further complicated by the fact that Americans love to live near the water.

 

[ChE1997]

Because leaders of the hard core climate movement have turned it into a religion. The earth is their God and man is destructive and evil unless they buy into their religious dogma of overpopulation, green energy and saving the planet. It's a freakin cult rooted in Marxist principles.

I thought the jewish and Christian default man is "distructive and evil".

Fallen and sinful is what my Bible says... And our Fall corrupted all nature...

And overpopulation, Green energy and saving the planet are not "Marxist". Ol' Karl had no idea what green energy or saving the planet was.

 

[IBleedMaroonDawg]

Checking back in this morning. Tell me, who won?

 

[thekimmer]

Wow "Atheistic Science"?

Or Humans are unique ( I think the bible mentions this) in their ability among other life on earth to make dramatic changes to the environment.

I mean we didn't just let beaver build the Mississippi river levees...

This is not meant to be a cut. Pure science by it's very nature is atheistic. And yes humans are unique and I believe that uniqueness is of Divine origin. It actually makes more sense for people who believe this to favor combating climate change if it were possible than those who truly believe everything we are now is a result of physical happenings billions of years ago and evolutionary processes.

 

[ChE1997]

There is a correlation between income levels and pollution. If you are just trying to survive then pollution and the environment kind of take a back seat to eating.

Now, if more people were able to be lifted out of extreme poverty then naturally the correlation would say pollution would go down and probably by a greater magnitude than what we are trying to do in developed nations. How do you do that? You provide an all in energy policy (everything)until you can go 100% green. You don't just shove green down everybody's throat especially countries who have no chance of being successful right now with premature green alternatives.

Yeah. That's the thing. our current system is to dump the bad stuff for free into the air.

Same as when Europe had to solve Cholera. Had to spend money to make sewers for people to put their **** in. It was way cheaper just to dump it in the gutter. But noooo, had to spend money to build a sewer system****