Feds Going Green

[steveray]

As soon as we outlaw private jets and yachts and cap house sizes at say 5000ft, I will let someone tell me I cant have a wood burning stove in my 1400ft house with the thermostat set at 62....REDUCE/ reuse/ recycle....Remember that? Why do you think REDUCE came first...

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle | US EPA

Consumer information about reducing, reusing, and recycling materials.

www.epa.gov

 

[Mech]

No need to buy steel if they just start the coal fired units that have been shut down, but there's probably a lot of maintenance and inspections required before that could happen.

If they close the federal building cafeterias, that would bring the cooking related emissions to zero, right?

 

[Msradell]

It's all going to be fusion soon anyway....

Nuclear Fusion Breakthrough: The Future Of Clean, Limitless Energy

Battery technology could advance, allowing for mass adoption of clean energy production and storage for homes, vehicles and more.

www.forbes.com

Yeah, probably won't take another 40 or 50 years to make it a viable alternative!

 

[ICE]

Yeah, probably won't take another 40 or 50 years to make it a viable alternative!

Nuclear Fusion Breakthrough: The Future Of Clean, Limitless Energy

Battery technology could advance, allowing for mass adoption of clean energy production and storage for homes, vehicles and more.

www.forbes.com

"By contrast, nuclear fusion is far more efficient, generates almost no waste, and runs off hydrogen atoms readily available in seawater."

Shirley the use of seawater will upset a faction of the Green movement.

 

[ICE]

Having read the article, it is talking about (a) standards for new federal buildings and (b) a standard for 30% of the federal building stock to bring "their emissions from cooking and heating equipment down to zero." That latter standard could presumably be met largely by the new buildings and by remodels/renovations that were going to be done anyway. So I don't see why you jump to throwing away existing equipment that isn't near end of life.


I don't know what data went into developing the guidelines referred to in the article, but there are certainly plenty of "cradle to grave" analyses of "green" technologies vs incumbent technologies. Often the "green" option wins at every point of the lifecycle; sometimes the "green" option is behind at the start of use, but then pulls ahead fairly quickly during the operational period due to reducing operating emissions.

Cheers, Wayne

If you have ever been to a government auction you understand the waste of operational existing equipment. I saw Zodiak boats sold by the pound .... of course the rubber was sliced open to make sure that there was no liability attached.

Data complied by the government supports what the government wants to support. Data compiled by other entities has shown that the Earth's temperature was on an upward swing long before the dramatic rise in emissions of so-called climate warming gasses.

I hear that the hole in the ozone layer is closing. There's just so many "facts" to consider. It's a study that the longer it takes the more incomplete it becomes.

 

[ICE]

I guess as long as one doesn't believe in climate change and the human actions causing it, all this seems meaningless. Or if you do believe but changes will cost you profit, like it will for the AGA and NAHB, you'll also be against reducing greenhouse gasses.

There is a third scenario.
3. One could believe in climate change caused by reasons other than man made.

Or even 4. One could believe climate change is man made and be looking forward to the end game.

Oh and 5. Don't care one way or the other.

Yup there's a 6. Climate change is a weapon of mass destruction unleashed by Saddam Hussein.

Whatever one believes....one is entitled to that belief. However, accepting the word of men with the hubris to say that they know for sure is a leap off a Cliff. A leap into a complete unknown and betting our future on it. We are willing to ruin the country to save the planet. Somehow I'm not surprised by that.

Acid rain is a recent example of a suspect phenomena. Fatboy, a Covid shot won't fix phenomena.

 

[wwhitney]

Data complied by the government supports what the government wants to support. Data compiled by other entities has shown that the Earth's temperature was on an upward swing long before the dramatic rise in emissions of so-called climate warming gasses.

Wrong.

That humanity's CO2 emissions (along with other gases like methane) have caused a bit over 1 degree C of rise in average global temperature to date, and that continuing on the path of the status quo will result in an increasing rate of temperature rise, is well established by a near unanimity of scientists who have studied the question. So at this point, acceptance of those facts is a precondition for participation in rational discussion of future energy policy.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[ICE]

Wrong.

That humanity's CO2 emissions (along with other gases like methane) have caused a bit over 1 degree C of rise in average global temperature to date, and that continuing on the path of the status quo will result in an increasing rate of temperature rise, is well established by a near unanimity of scientists who have studied the question. So at this point, acceptance of those facts is a precondition for participation in rational discussion of future energy policy.

Cheers, Wayne

Well I guess that I'll have to sit this one out.. Have you ever worked at Twitter?

 

[wwhitney]

Well I guess that I'll have to sit this one out..

You can still participate in the discussion, it just won't be evidence-based. : - )

Have you ever worked at Twitter?

Nope, but as far as I know Twitter's content moderation pre-Musk was similarly about stopping the propagation of misinformation.

In case you're interested in the scientific facts, here's a brief fact that I think is both fairly simple and fairly strong in its demonstrating that increasing CO2 is warming the planet. Namely, we have satellite data going back to the 1970s (IIRC) that show how the planet is emitting light in the infrared (which is the ultimate way that all energy coming in from the sun leaves the planet.) And what that data shows is that the planet is getting worse at rejecting heat into space, precisely in the region(s) of the infrared in which CO2 is known to absorb (from laboratory observations).

In other words, we have direct satellite observation of the increased greenhouse effect caused by increased CO2, in precisely the expected manner. If you want more information about this, I can provide some references.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[JMarsh]

That humanity's CO2 emissions (along with other gases like methane) have caused a bit over 1 degree C of rise in average global temperature to date,

Temperature rise, due to CO2 forcing, is measured as a global temperature anomaly - typically against a 30 year base line (typically 1950 to 1980). There has been no recorded "1 degree C of rise in average global temperature to date."

 

[JMarsh]

The current global temperature anomaly, when compared with the 1910 - 1940 baseline, would show cooling.

 

[wwhitney]

The current global temperature anomaly, when compared with the 1910 - 1940 baseline, would show cooling.

NASA says otherwise. A little visual integration estimate says recent temperature are 1C above the 1910-1940 average:

World of Change: Global Temperatures

The average global temperature has increased by a little more than 1° Celsius (2° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov

Cheers, Wayne

 

[JMarsh]

NASA says otherwise. A little visual integration estimate says recent temperature are 1C above the 1910-1940 average:

World of Change: Global Temperatures

The average global temperature has increased by a little more than 1° Celsius (2° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov

Cheers, Wayne

Your graph proves my point. Thanks!

Cheers.

 

[wwhitney]

Your graph proves my point. Thanks!

Sorry, you seem to misreading the graph. Visually averaging the bars in the graph over several time periods, I see:

A) 1910-1940 average of -0.25C
B) 1951-1980 average of 0C (this is expected as that is the baseline chosen)
C) 2001-2021 average of 0.75C

That's a straight warming trend. B is warmer than A by 0.25C, and C is warmer than A by 1.0C. There is no cooling trend.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[JMarsh]

That's a straight warming trend. B is warmer than A by 0.25C, and C is warmer than A by 1.0C. There is no cooling trend.

Lol.

You really don't understand how averaging against a baseline works do you? (hint: it works in both directions).

 

[JMarsh]

I forgot: Cheers

 

[wwhitney]

You really don't understand how averaging against a baseline works do you? (hint: it works in both directions).

If you think that the graph shows that "The current global temperature anomaly, when compared with the 1910 - 1940 baseline, would show cooling," why don't you explain that?

I gave my (correct) explanation that the graph shows 1C current warming when using 1910-1940 as a baseline.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[JMarsh]

If you think that the graph shows that "The current global temperature anomaly, when compared with the 1910 - 1940 baseline, would show cooling," why don't you explain that?

I gave my (correct) explanation that the graph shows 1C current warming when using 1910-1940 as a baseline.

You really need to learn how to read graphs before throwing them around. Keep digging your hole....

CHEEERS!

 

[wwhitney]

You really need to learn how to read graphs before throwing them around.

I thought there was a small chance we were having a terminological misunderstanding, but apparently you aren't interested in actually having a discussion.

It's an unassailable fact that the graph I posted shows that the average global temperature over the last decade is about 1C higher than the average global temperature from 1910-1940. While your incorrect statement about cooling would mean that the present average global temperature is lower than the temperature from 1910-1940.

Seems like we are done here, unless you are interested in making a substantive response.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[BayPointArchitect]

Atmospheric carbon dioxide is harmful to all of us due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. That's something we are already seeing and which will only continue to accelerate under a "business as usual" strategy. We currently have a market failure because the cost of carbon pollution has not been internalized to the energy markets. That needs to happen either via a tax on carbon pollution, subsidies for non-polluting technologies, or quotas and regulations. Or a combination of all three.

Cheers, Wayne

More tax and more regulation? That sounds like something someone would say who is from Berkeley - or that place where people are free to poop on the sidewalk.

 

[wwhitney]

More tax and more regulation?

If you have a better solution to a market failure, economists the world over will love to hear it.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[ICE]

You can still participate in the discussion, it just won't be evidence-based. : - )

Therein lies the quandary. The Green movement based its entire agenda on a rise in temperature. The melting ice shelf, apparent worsening weather, drought and monsoons are presumed to to be the result however, the linchpin is a supposed temperature rise of 1° in a span of eighty years.

Note that I characterized the rise in temperature as "supposed". That is pseudo science on a grand scale....no less than the entire planet. The same bunch that will tell us about a galaxy far, far away. .....25,000 light years from Earth and here's an artist's depiction based on some x-rays that hit a receiver located on a mountain in Argentina. They like to point out that there are possible life supporting planets....and the planets have moons.

Well those guys and gals have families to feed, mortgages to pay, an electric car to polish. They exist by feeding us an intellectual pablum. Do you recall the brontosaurus? It was the made up dinosaur that Fred operated at the quarry. Most every science text book had one. That's because a group of paleontologists needed to secure new grant money so they took a few bones from around the globe and created Dino.

Skepticism is healthy. Bernie and Sam didn't get any of my wealth. I am not willing to place my eggs in a green basket based on a possible 1° rise in temperature over one year much less eighty years. And who are we trusting for that data? A pack of schlubs that work for the government????

The resources poured over the green altar are enormous. One study after another. Ice cores from far flung places and tree rings from others. Might as well be chicken bones and sea shells…although that has probably been considered. The rise in ocean levels is said to be six inches in the last hundred years. Oceans are miles deep and schlubs pinpoint a six inch rise.

Now satellites are used to monitor the ocean levels… 800 miles from Earth they measure millimeter changes in levels of miles deep oceans…amazing stuff huh?

Okay let’s sail off that cliff and accept Chicken Littles’s rantings. The seas are a rising. Drought is getting worse. Weather is too. Who’s to say that there isn’t some other cause besides mankind? If you accept the premise that the Universe was created, perhaps the Creator is turning up the heat.

 

[BayPointArchitect]

If you have a better solution to a market failure, economists the world over will love to hear it.

Cheers, Wayne

Don't let me stop you from drinking the Kool-Aid of propaganda. If you want to pretend that your ideology has worked in other countries - that's okay. Where has higher taxes and regulation worked so far? Germany? Nope. Rwanda? Nope. Zambia? Nope. There is a difference between science and science fiction.

 

[wwhitney]

Note that I characterized the rise in temperature as "supposed". That is pseudo science on a grand scale....no less than the entire planet.

I suggest that you look at, e.g., the "Summary of global surface temperature datasets" listed here: https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/c...mperature-data-sets-overview-comparison-table

There are multiple different global temperature data sets available going back up to a couple centuries. Those data sets are not going to exactly agree on the global average temperature at any given point in time--you can only measure temperature in finitely many places, and if you pick a different set of places, say with more or less spatial resolution, you're going to get a slightly different final answer.

But they all show the same trend--about 2 deg F warming since preindustrial times. And that's why the graph I first posted uses the term "temperature anomaly"--it's a reference to the change in temperature within each data set, as the slight absolute difference in temperature between data sets is not significant.

That's the reality, it is established beyond a reasonable doubt. If you're skeptical, that's fine, good scientists are skeptical, and you can dive into the details of each data set, inspect their methodologies, and try to figure out if there's some error or source of statistical bias that thousands of other people have missed. It happens--that how science advances. But it is rare.

Absent that level of examination, we should all accept what the data shows as fact. To do otherwise is literally delusional.

Cheers, Wayne