1 hour ago, jabloomf1230 said:

With grid management, the shift to electric vehicles should be possible to accommodate.

 

Yep, as I mentioned, the so called Smart Grid is going to be a big deal. The talk is also about the International Smart grid now too. Although that's a decade or more away I suspect. 

54 minutes ago, jabloomf1230 said:

The one unknown is whether more air conditioning will be needed as the climate continues to warm.

The operative word is climate CHANGE.  Climate change is affected by global warming and that does not necessarily mean local climates will warm.  They are two different events.

Here in southeast New Mexico we are experiencing the coolest summer ever.  Our Spring was very hot.  We were 100+ degrees almost every day in June.  But it cooled off in July with our highs ranging from the high 80s to the mid 90s.  We usually see temps ranging from the high 90s to as much as 110+.  Weather Underground has the first 10 days in August ranging from the low 80s to the low 90s when we should be topping 100 degrees.

We have hardly used our air conditioner since the end of June.

It's hard to predict how global WARMING (which is primarily seen in the melting of glaciers and the rise in sea temperatures) is going to affect climate CHANGE in any given area.  It's been all over the map.

The thing to watch are the changes in ocean currents and the jet streams.

Where I live (Roswell NM) we should be primarily affected by the tropical jet during the summer.  But the arctic jet has had an undue influence this year.  Our monsoon rains should be starting this month but none is forecast for the next 10 days.

Noel

 

I am a ham radio / shortwave radio freak. The sunspot activity has been close to nil for years. This is not normal, it goes in cycles. The last 2 cycles have been really minimal, like nothing old time radio guys ever experienced in their lives.

In the past, sunspot cycles with very low sunspot activity coincided with global cooling, not global warming. We have undeniable record of mini ice ages in the past 2000 years (not as bad as it sounds).

By any measure of common sense, global cooling is going to happen again. Based on the sunspot cycles it could be right around the corner. I would not worry about rising oceans and flooded coastal cities, anywhere near as much as I would worry more about the opposite.

Suppose co2 caused by industry is now and will continue warming temperatures a bit. A typical cooling era matching historical records would more than make up for that. These cooling eras are as sure as judgment day, perfectly documented, and we are about due.

 

 

4 hours ago, Fielder said:

In the past, sunspot cycles with very low sunspot activity coincided with global cooling, not global warming. We have undeniable record of mini ice ages in the past 2000 years

 

You are referring to periods like the so called "Little Ice Age". Which actually wasn't an ice age at all, it was just called that. It didn't impact the entire globe in terms of an average global temperature drop, it was just Europe impacted. It is true that the "Maunder Minimum" occurred during that time, but the cooling effect in Northern Europe was primarily caused by a very significant increase in volcanic activity. The Maunder Minimum simply exacerbated the cooling that had already begun before the drop in sun spot activity. 

 

Quote

Based on the sunspot cycles it could be right around the corner. I would not worry about rising oceans and flooded coastal cities, anywhere near as much as I would worry more about the opposite.

 

Well you should worry about rising oceans and flooded coastal cites, because the impacts of global warming aren't significantly mitigated by solar activity. There is no "impending mini ice age" The Warming we are experiencing from burning fossil fuels is SIX TIMES greater than the cooling from a prolonged grand solar minimum. Cooling from a grand solar minimum would only be a mere -0.1W/m2. So it would only offset a couple of years of  warming caused by our emissions.

 

Quote

Suppose co2 caused by industry is now and will continue warming temperatures a bit. A typical cooling era matching historical records would more than make up for that

 

Totally wrong I'm afraid. Always worth remembering that scientists aren't idiots, they were there long before we were in terms of considering such possibilities. Its a shame that these climate myths that have been shown to be false continue to surface. 

 

Quote

Even if a Grand Solar Minimum were to last a century, global temperatures would continue to warm. The reason for this is because more factors than just variations in the Sun’s output change global temperatures on Earth, the most dominant of those today is the warming coming from human-induced greenhouse gas emissions.

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2953/there-is-no-impending-mini-ice-age/

Edited August 3, 20214 yr by martin-w

Climate CHANGE is a thing, as it always has been.

We can't lot on if we dorp CO2 emission to like, whatever, 1800 standard, and the climate will go back to clam and chill as 1800 (BTW it wasn't)

If we let climate evolution "freely" (emission whatever you want) or "naturally" ( stop all Human emission), the climatre will still change, but no one could predict what would came 1000 years or even 100 years later.

Looking at 4.5 billion years of earth history, the "naturally" changing climate only sutiable for human-like animals to basically survive for less than 20% of it's time, and avg temp have been as high as 30C, with 10x CO2 concentration and no polar ice sheet as recent as 100millon years ago.

 

My point is, human should deal with climate change, of course, but not by the way advertised now, like cutting CO2 emission or so, but develope technology to Actively and Purposefully intervene the earth's (or other planets') climate, to suit human's needs. We are hardly starting on that route now.

If we don't, in less than 100 million years, the sun's rising fusion action along would dry the earth up.

Edited August 3, 20214 yr by C2615

36 minutes ago, C2615 said:

Climate CHANGE is a thing, as it always has been.

 

Of course it is. And we know the casual factors responsible for previous climate change. None of those causal factors are present now. Our CO2 emissions are present. And we have a correlation between our emissions and temp rise. And we know its our CO2 responsible due to its isotropic signature.

 

Quote

If we let climate evolution "freely" (emission whatever you want) or "naturally" ( stop all Human emission), the climatre will still change, but no one could predict what would came 1000 years or even 100 years later.

 

Yes, the climate will still change due to natural causal factors. But that's not relevant to our emissions since the start of the industrial revolution causing the current rapid warming and climate crisis now.

 

36 minutes ago, C2615 said:

If we don't, in less than 100 million years, the sun's rising fusion action along would dry the earth up.

 

Not relevant to the discussion. And I doubt human civilisation will be here in 100 million years.

Edited August 3, 20214 yr by martin-w

I think the Bjerkness Institute at the University of Oslo is the premier authority on global warming.  They are not politically influenced.  Vilhelm Bjerkness is considered the father of meteorology.  His work was continued by his son Johann.  

NASA and NOAA is a pretty good authorities on man made global warming.  Here is an animation of how global warming has followed the rise in fossil fuel use and the increasing CO2 emissions into the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution in the 1880s.

https://climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/139/video-global-warming-from-1880-to-2020/

Notice how the warming increases from the 1930s to the present as automobile and aircraft development increased by orders of magnitude each decade.  By the end of WW2 the use of personal automobiles and increase in air travel resulting in tons and tons of CO2 emissions doubling every decade and perhaps even tripling in this century. 

Noel

 

Edited August 3, 20214 yr by birdguy

I have a 1000 watt power supply.  I don't think it's ever used that level of power.  Even with FS2020.

9 hours ago, martin-w said:

You are referring to periods like the so called "Little Ice Age". Which actually wasn't an ice age at all, it was just called that. It didn't impact the entire globe in terms of an average global temperature drop, it was just Europe impacted.

Actually, I suspect that North American and Siberia were also affected, but no one in either area recorded such for posterity... 🤪

14 hours ago, Fielder said:

I am a ham radio / shortwave radio freak. The sunspot activity has been close to nil for years. This is not normal, it goes in cycles. The last 2 cycles have been really minimal, like nothing old time radio guys ever experienced in their lives.

In the past, sunspot cycles with very low sunspot activity coincided with global cooling, not global warming. We have undeniable record of mini ice ages in the past 2000 years (not as bad as it sounds).

By any measure of common sense, global cooling is going to happen again. Based on the sunspot cycles it could be right around the corner. I would not worry about rising oceans and flooded coastal cities, anywhere near as much as I would worry more about the opposite.

Suppose co2 caused by industry is now and will continue warming temperatures a bit. A typical cooling era matching historical records would more than make up for that. These cooling eras are as sure as judgment day, perfectly documented, and we are about due.

 

 

There is little doubt, or "high confidence", that the average global temp has increased quite rapidly since the advent of the industrial age in the early 1900s.  It is also likely that *some* of that temp increase is due to the increased concentration of greenhouse gases like CO2, which makes sense as we've been spewing out gases like CO2, CO, and many others at increasing levels over the past 100 or so years.  There is also the question of the role of water vapor, which is the most potent greenhouse gas.

However, no one knows for sure just how much of the warming is actually due to human activity.  There are estimates and models, but the scientists do not know for certain.  Period.  Anyone who states that they know for certain either doesn't understand the data/science or is dishonest.

You are exactly right - global cooling would be much worse for humanity than global warming.

Dave

 

Edited August 3, 20214 yr by dave2013

1 hour ago, dave2013 said:

However, no one knows for sure just how much of the warming is actually due to human activity.  There are estimates and models, but the scientists do not know for certain. 

Dave, you pressed my hot button.

A personal friend, Doctor Mike Bradley, who holds a doctorate in atmospheric science and worked at Lawrence Livermore Labs for many years before he retired is certain and he most certainly understands the data and science because he helped develop it.  And to my knowledge he is not dishonest.

The only ones I suspect are dishonest are those who work for industries who want to downplay the dangers of global warming.

It's happened before in the tobacco industry.   Big Tobacco hired scientists to cause doubt that tobacco was harmful and claimed studies were inconclusive and did not prove tobacco and lung cancer were linked.  Leading the pack was Doctor Fred Singer, a paid shill for the tobacco industry, who waged a 20 year campaign denying tobacco was harmful or cause lug cancer.

If you are interested in the subject of scientists who deny global warming, the dangers of tobacco, DDT, and other public interest issues read The Merchants of Doubt.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003RRXXO8/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Noel

5 hours ago, birdguy said:

Dave, you pressed my hot button.

A personal friend, Doctor Mike Bradley, who holds a doctorate in atmospheric science and worked at Lawrence Livermore Labs for many years before he retired is certain and he most certainly understands the data and science because he helped develop it.  And to my knowledge he is not dishonest.

The only ones I suspect are dishonest are those who work for industries who want to downplay the dangers of global warming.

It's happened before in the tobacco industry.   Big Tobacco hired scientists to cause doubt that tobacco was harmful and claimed studies were inconclusive and did not prove tobacco and lung cancer were linked.  Leading the pack was Doctor Fred Singer, a paid shill for the tobacco industry, who waged a 20 year campaign denying tobacco was harmful or cause lug cancer.

If you are interested in the subject of scientists who deny global warming, the dangers of tobacco, DDT, and other public interest issues read The Merchants of Doubt.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003RRXXO8/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Noel

OK.  So what does your scientist friend say about the contribution of human activity to global warming?  Does he claim to know exactly how much of the temp increase is due to humans?

Again, I'm not downplaying the issue of global warming.  It is real and we should be concerned.  However, in order to know how to deal with it in a realistic, practical, and effective way, we have to know more about it.  The truth is, we just don't completely understand how the climate works because it is such a complex system influenced by many variables.  What if it's not just CO2 that is causing this, for example?  We need to know more, and I'm all for spending more on research.

In the meantime, we all know that we need to reduce pollution/emissions, so we can start moving in that direction in a wise, gradual, and effective way.

What I cannot abide are the shills in govt. and the media constantly hyping up the issue and trying to scare everyone just to get ratings and more money for themselves.

Dave

Computers today. FM radio transmitters next? Some of those hotboxes require liquid cooling pushing 50 thousand watts.I could say more, but i might be banned for the wrong words. @@##&&**

Edited August 4, 20214 yr by Paul Deluca

3 hours ago, dave2013 said:

What if it's not just CO2 that is causing this, for example? 

No, it's not just C02, but C02 is by far the major greenhouse gas.  And the measurements are very precise.

The following is from a NOAA publication:

CO₂ (and other gases) consisting of two or more dissimilar atoms absorb infrared (IR) radiation in a characteristic, unique manner. Water vapor, methane, CO₂ and CO are all gases that can be measured with IR sensors. Therefore, IR detectors are is the most widely used for CO₂ analyzers. They are stable and highly selective for CO₂, they have a long lifetime and, because the measured gas doesn't contact the sensor, they can withstand high humidity, dust, dirt and other harsh conditions.

Precise knowledge of CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere is necessary because it has a key role in global warming (Figure 1). Instruments that are used to measure atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations must therefore be accurate to one ppmv or even better.

We know a lot more than you seem to think we know.

I'm certainly no expert but having been an Air Force weather forecaster for last 9 years of my military service I am familiar with the workings of the atmosphere and know enough to understand the literature.

Noel

 

Edited August 4, 20214 yr by birdguy

14 hours ago, dave2013 said:

There is little doubt, or "high confidence", that the average global temp has increased quite rapidly since the advent of the industrial age in the early 1900s.  It is also likely that *some* of that temp increase is due to the increased concentration of greenhouse gases like CO2, which makes sense as we've been spewing out gases like CO2, CO, and many others at increasing levels over the past 100 or so years. 

 

 Its more than a mere "some". We have a correlation between temp rise and our emissions. We know how much we are emitting and we know what that should do. And it is doing that. 

 

Quote

There is also the question of the role of water vapor, which is the most potent greenhouse gas.

 

Another statement based on lack of knowledge if you don't mind me saying so. We know the role of water vapour. In fact the role of water vapour is crucial in terms of global warming. If it wasn't for water vapour we would have far less warming.

Water vapour IS the most potent greenhouse gas.

Our CO2 causes warming.

That warming causes an increase in evaporation.

That increase in water vapour due to evaporation increases warming further.

That further increase in warming causes locked up CO2 to be released from places like permafrost for example.

That locked up CO2 that is released causes greater still warming.

That greater still warming causes even more evaporation and the feedback loop continues.

Its called the "Water Vapour Positive Feedback Loop" and is one of the major factors involved in warming.  Again... scientists aren't idiots. 

 

Edited August 4, 20214 yr by martin-w