Feds Going Green

[JMarsh]

I'm new to this website and I had no intent to engage in this topic. I am, however, happy to see that the moderators allow this type of discussion. This will be my last reply to this thread.

Now back to Code research of Live/Work Townhomes....

 

[bill1952]

The earth is warmer now than when NOAA records were first kept in 1880 (way outside the 60 year cycle range.) Ice caps, water levels, weather prove it. It doesn't matter exactly how much. All that matters if the warming is halted or reversed before it's too late. I don't think we should bet the humankind's future on denial.

 

[wwhitney]

Let's recount the number of of errors Wayne has made

I am impressed by your persistence in pushing misinformation. Basically everything you have said about baselines is false. It seems that you are not actually interested in examining your misinformation but just in repeating it uncritically. So my response here is primarily for the benefit of others, to reduce the chance they are similarly misled.

As to baselines, here's a simple example. 1 degree Centigrade = 1 degree Kelvin. They both represent the same amount of temperature change. But the Centigrade scale and the Kelvin scale have different baselines (choice of 0 point). 0C = the freezing point of water (at standard temperature and pressure henceforth). While 0K = absolute zero. The conversion is given by 0C = 273.15K.

So if we ask what the boiling point of water is, we get different answers for C and K, namely 100C or 373.15K. But if we are interested in a change in temperature, e.g. the difference between the boiling point of water and the freezing point of water, we get the same answer, 100C = 100K. Choice of baseline literally disappears in the calculation of a change in the data.

And just to complete my rebuttal, here is the graph that you are so interested in, the NASA data I originally posted with the 0 degree anomaly baseline changed from the 1951-1980 average to the 1911-1940 average. I downloaded the yearly data from NASA's source, and I graphed the data as a spreadsheet chart. I include the original baseline version and the new baseline version so you can see the difference. [Webhosting images is not something I've done much, so hopefully the link I'm providing is a reasonably permanent one.]

And as expected, they have the same shape, the only difference is that the the x-axis (the 0 point on the y-axis, i.e. the baseline) has shifted downward. The second graph also very clearly shows that for the last 7 years, the average temperature (that's a spatial average over the planet and over one year) has been 1 deg C or more above the 1911-1940 baseline.

As to 30 year or 60 year cycles in the data shown, I don't see any obvious ones. There may be some subtle ones, but anyone can see by looking at the graph that any such cycle is swamped by the overall rising trend.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[ICE]

Does the interpretation of a graph really matter? We're talking about 0.02° per year with a planet that has been through cataclysmic events. Is the Earth so delicate that 1° of cooling is going to ruin it? That's absurd. What's worse is our leadership's dogged refusal to temper a response. There is a push to "kill the fossil fuel industry" with no plan B.

There has been quite a few momentous advances in technology and leaving fossil fuels behind is a possibility. When steamboats came on the scene we didn't immediately sink all of the sailboats. So why the headlong rush to destroy the oil companies? If you ask the Green police it is because the oil companies are rapacious bastards that must be punished. Well if you must .... but why do I have to suffer too?

As the US withers away, other countries are asking for reparations because they pollute and somehow it is our fault that they pollute. They assume that we have lost our minds.

Something else to consider is the money. The renewable energy industry can't seem to flourish on it's own. It takes big taxpayer dollars to keep it afloat. It has been that way for too long. As long as there is free money there will be a manufactured crisis.

And by the way, there is a difference between being intelligent and being smart.

 

[bill1952]

Does the interpretation of a graph really matter? We're talking about 0.02° per year with a planet that has been through cataclysmic events. Is the Earth so delicate that 1° of cooling is going to ruin it? That's absurd. What's worse is our leadership's dogged refusal to temper a response. There is push to "kill the fossil fuel industry" with no plan B.

There has been quite a few momentous advances in technology and leaving fossil fuels behind is a possibility. When steamboats came on the scene we didn't immediately sink all of the sailboats? So why the headlong rush to destroy the oil companies. If you ask the Green police it is because the oil companies are rapacious bastards that must be punished. Well if you must .... but why do I have to suffer too.

As the US withers away, other countries are asking for reparations because they pollute and somehow it is our fault that they pollute. That's because they assume that we have lost our minds.

Something else to consider is the money. The renewable energy industry can't seem to flourish on it's own. It takes big taxpayer dollars to keep it afloat. It has been that way for too long. As long as there is free money there will be a manufactured crisis.

And by the way, there is a difference between being intelligent and being smart.

Which one - smart or intelligent - pastes the same text twice?

 

[ICE]

Which one - smart or intelligent - pastes the same text twice?

Oh I suppose that would be a stupid mistake. Not the first time either. Probably not the last time.
Oh I suppose that would be a stupid mistake. Not the first time either. Probably not the last time.
Oh I suppose that would be a stupid mistake. Not the first time either. Probably not the last time.

But hey now since you need to know....intelligent finds the problem...smart knows what to do about it.

 

[steveray]

The renewable energy industry can't seem to flourish on it's own. It takes big taxpayer dollars to keep it afloat. It has been that way for too long. As long as there is free money there will be a manufactured crisis.

This....exactly this....All the while making the products in a nation that refuses to play fair in the pollution sandbox...If they would build their factories here, I could get more on board...

Oh I suppose that would be a stupid mistake. Not the first time either.

I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken....

 

[ICE]

I thought I was wrong once, ....

Me too but it turns out that it is dozens of times.

 

[Mark K]

Aren't they really just saving water by not using the toilet? Green at all costs....

I hear the hate. It is obvious that you do not live in Berkeley

 

[steveray]

I hear the hate. It is obvious that you do not live in Berkeley

Shirley I can't afford to live in California...Its even more expensive than CT.....I would hate paying a high cost of living and constantly steeping over poop and homeless people but not hate the people that live like that....I pee in my yard all the time and I have plenty of water to wash it away and it is not even frozen right now....

 

[wwhitney]

Does the interpretation of a graph really matter?

It does actually. Because how you interpret the past data informs your future forecast, which advises you on what future action is appropriate.

We're talking about 0.02° per year with a planet that has been through cataclysmic events. Is the Earth so delicate that 1° of cooling is going to ruin it? That's absurd.

Putting it as 0.02 deg F per year is a way to minimize the number. It's also 2 deg F over the last century. People find it easier to think about issues on a one year time horizon, but issues on a decade or century time horizon will still affect us.

If we had confidence that business as usual would yield only another 2 deg F warming over the next century, there would still be severe negative effects, but the urgency would be less. However, the data shows the rate of temperature change is accelerating, which is what you would expect from the increasing production rate of CO2 over the last few decades. So if business as usual would lead to 4 deg F or 8 deg F over the next century, that would have a huge impact.

Those in denial would like to find an explanation for the past 2 deg F rise that leads to a forecast of 0 deg F rise over the next century. However, there isn't one that is scientifically sound, there is only pseudo-science misinformation.

And no, even a worst case scenario like 10 deg F rise over the next century isn't going to "ruin" Earth. It would kill off a lot species, and it will make life much worse for billions of people. It would also make life better for some people, but the overall impact would be incredibly negative.

So it's not about Earth, it's about you and me in the future, and what's good and fair for them.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[ICE]

Putting it as 0.02 deg F per year is a way to minimize the number.

Well that is the number. It is a small number so you shade it as an attempt to downplay the threat.

It does actually. Because how you interpret the past data informs your future forecast, which advises you on what future action is appropriate.

Apparently the data is at the core of the issue for you. The data has been analyzed by others and found to be suspect, or supporting an opposing conclusion from yours.

If we had confidence that business as usual would yield only another 2 deg F warming over the next century, there would still be severe negative effects, but the urgency would be less.

That thinking, while not unique to you, is based on studies and what passes as science all of which was created out of whole cloth just for this "looming disaster".

Those in denial would like to find an explanation for the past 2 deg F rise that leads to a forecast of 0 deg F rise over the next century. However, there isn't one that is scientifically sound, there is only pseudo-science misinformation.

You have no room for dissent. I wish I were educated on the subject and able to present the “pseudo-science” because from what I have seen of it, it looks and sounds just as authoritative as yours.

And no, even a worst case scenario like 10 deg F rise over the next century isn't going to "ruin" Earth. It would kill off a lot species, and it will make life much worse for billions of people. It would also make life better for some people, but the overall impact would be incredibly negative.

If you would sprinkle that with a "maybe" or a "might" then you could be on board with the rest of the world that scratches their head thinking, "What to do, What to do" But no, it is an absolute in your world. I for one reject absolutes that come from the federal government. The federal government has a poor track record in the veracity department.

So it's not about Earth, it's about you and me in the future, and what's good and fair for them.

The future is here. The damage from climate change is upon us. The cost of energy has ballooned. That caused inflation. People that live paycheck to paycheck are being hammered by the war on fossil fuel and that's on the heels of a pandemic that delivered a body blow.

On a positive note....for you....the Green movement which is really a wealth movement will succeed in the stated goal. The US will be all that closer to second tier status and we will all being going to bed earlier....wrapped in blankets.

As a side note, my natural gas bill this time last year was $129....it is now $305. Granted I have a large home and I can afford the tripling but I'm not going to afford it. Instead I will live a little colder and let a fire build in my gut for the Greenies. After Jan. 1st a 17% federal tax gets tacked on. This is never going to stop.

 

[wwhitney]

Apparently the data is at the core of the issue for you. The data has been analyzed by others and found to be suspect, or supporting an opposing conclusion from yours.

The data has been analyzed by thousands of people, and perhaps a few percent disagree with the consensus.

You have no room for dissent. I wish I were educated on the subject and able to present the “pseudo-science” because from what I have seen of it, it looks and sounds just as authoritative as yours.

That's the crux of the misinformation problem, the general public can't easily distinguish reputable science from pseudo-science. So all I can suggest is that you listen to the vast majority of the scientists, and not those without any scientific credentials.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[ICE]

I was correct when I said that you are intelligent.

 

[ICE]

The data has been analyzed by thousands of people, and perhaps a few percent disagree with the consensus.

How would you know that to be true? When you say "perhaps a few percent" you reveal the fact that you have no way of knowing. If in fact "thousands of people" have analyzed the data, what percentage understood the data?

That's the crux of the misinformation problem, the general public can't easily distinguish reputable science from pseudo-science. So all I can suggest is that you listen to the vast majority of the scientists, and not those without any scientific credentials.

Are you a card carrying member of the general public? Scientific credentials about a subject as foreign as global warming are what exactly? A stint as a weather forecaster for United Airlines? An Amish barn painter? Whom do you trust to tell the future? You would say that planet Earth is many billions of years old and in the same breath shout a warning based on thirty years.

The immediate destruction of the fossil fuel industry will certainly cause immeasurable harm to the USA with scant results. China is the manufacturer for the green cause. The solar and wind energy production as well as storage systems all come from China. China is building coal fired power plants to produce it. China and India have three billion people and virtually none have ever heard about global warming.

If one were to accept the numbers floated by the Green police, the USA contributes 14% of global emissions. Where's the graph that shows the net improvement gained by killing the US fossil fuel industry. Obviously the best case scenario is 14%. Oh but what we do will influence the rest of the responsible polluters. Really? The Seychelles and Antigua hardly stack up against the real carbon offenders that are too busy clawing their way out of the third world to give a damn.

The mining of the materials necessary for all that's green is an immoral travesty. The people that want this the most have the most to gain. The people that are going to suffer the assured consequences will ultimately be left shivering in the dark.

An honest assessment of the issue would include an admission that there is no perfect knowledge or answer. The pronouncements from on high would include "we think" at every turn. Why is that so hard to admit? Do you have the temerity to scoff at naysayers? Such an attitude grates on so many.

I readily admit that I haven't any way to know one way or the other. The climate could be warming. A warming climate could be a problem. On the other hand the answer to both could be no. What I do know is that the supposed cure will kill the patient. If you want to save the future for our children....find a smart answer.

 

[wwhitney]

I think I'd prefer to let this discussion rest, but here's at least a partial answer to your questions:

How would you know that to be true?

Because the atmospheric physical chemistry involved has been studied for over 50 years? Exxon has known about it that long, for example.

ExxonMobil climate change denial - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

When you say "perhaps a few percent" you reveal the fact that you have no way of knowing. If in fact "thousands of people" have analyzed the data, what percentage understood the data?

The scientific consensus on climate change is discussed here (may be somewhat dated):

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

To quote in part "Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 countries . . . To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all."

That was 15 years ago, the evidence now is even stronger.

Scientific credentials about a subject as foreign as global warming are what exactly?

Ideally someone who's professional career involves research on some aspect of the subject, but certainly at least a master's degree in the field or an allied field like chemistry or physics. You know, just like you need a degree and accreditation to be a practicing engineer or a practicing architect.

An honest assessment of the issue would include an admission that there is no perfect knowledge or answer. The pronouncements from on high would include "we think" at every turn. Why is that so hard to admit? Do you have the temerity to scoff at naysayers? Such an attitude grates on so many.

In this discussion, I regret if I have presented my statements about climate science as 100% certainty versus, say, 90% - 99% certainty. [On the math comments, I am 100% certain.] 90% certainty is certainly enough for planning.

In fact, the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) has explicit guidance on this for the reports they publish. They suggest terms like "virtually certain" for 99%-100% likelihood, and "very likely" for 90%-100% likelihood, etc.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2017/08/AR5_Uncertainty_Guidance_Note.pdf

Popular discussion is obviously rarely so nuanced, and I agree I didn't pay attention to what confidence level to ascribe to each of my statements.

What I do know is that the supposed cure will kill the patient. If you want to save the future for our children....find a smart answer.

You are focusing on an extreme intervention, effectively banning oil and gas extraction in the US this year. I agree that 20 years from now, we'd probably be worse off if we did that than if we did nothing and let the status quo continue and global warming worsen.

But nobody is proposing to go cold turkey this year. There is an obvious middle ground, which is to taper to zero over 20 to 30 years.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[sergoodo]

Problem with the private sector is that budget limits how green a building can be realized: No problem with fed buildings since there is no respect for budget of our tax dollars. Climate "scientist" providing future psychic readings, basically creating the AGW superstition to leverage for cash, power...& now gilded buildings.

 

[BayPointArchitect]

As a volunteer on the ICC energy code committee, I would say that today was a good day after a proposal was disapproved after a long deliberation followed by a vote of 8 to 3. People who are both smart and intelligent prevailed over those who insist on changing the definition of everything and arbitrarily move the baseline in order to fit their agenda.

wwhitney, I am impressed by your persistence in pushing the false narrative. Reminds me of the year 2009 when pseudo-scientist and alarmist Al Gore - with absolute authority and confidence - claimed that there was a 75% chance that all of the Arctic ice would be gone in 7 years from then. Now I am not a mathematician, but 2009 plus 7 years equals the year 2016 - which was seven years ago. But in the year 2023, more of the Arctic is covered by ice than at any time since 2010. For the fact checkers: https:/weather.com

The silent majority disagree with the obnoxious European Union (the elite leaders thereof) who claim to represent the vast majority. When in fact there is the select few who manage the media and wikipedia and tell us to "follow the science".

I am not subscribing to any conspiracies, and I do think that we should become more energy efficient. But somehow the extremists (Nobel prize winner Al Gore) need to be moderated.

 

[classicT]

As a volunteer on the ICC energy code committee, I would say that today was a good day after a proposal was disapproved after a long deliberation followed by a vote of 8 to 3. People who are both smart and intelligent prevailed over those who insist on changing the definition of everything and arbitrarily move the baseline in order to fit their agenda.

wwhitney, I am impressed by your persistence in pushing the false narrative. Reminds me of the year 2009 when pseudo-scientist and alarmist Al Gore - with absolute authority and confidence - claimed that there was a 75% chance that all of the Arctic ice would be gone in 7 years from then. Now I am not a mathematician, but 2009 plus 7 years equals the year 2016 - which was seven years ago. But in the year 2023, more of the Arctic is covered by ice than at any time since 2010. For the fact checkers: https:/weather.com

The silent majority disagree with the obnoxious European Union (the elite leaders thereof) who claim to represent the vast majority. When in fact there is the select few who manage the media and wikipedia and tell us to "follow the science".

I am not subscribing to any conspiracies, and I do think that we should become more energy efficient. But somehow the extremists (Nobel prize winner Al Gore) need to be moderated.

I was on the same call this morning. Absolutely agree with you in that it is important for all sides to contribute and have a voice, and those at the extremes should not be the only voice allowed to speak.

 

[bill1952]

People who are both smart and intelligent prevailed over those who insist on changing the definition of everything and arbitrarily move the baseline in order to fit their agenda.

I can only guess that means AGA and NAHB prevailed. Certainly becoming the norm for Industry Code Council committees.

But in the year 2023, more of the Arctic is covered by ice than at any time since 2010.

Cherry picking a specific 13 years of data when 45 or so years of satelite pictures show and 100 or years of ships' logs show a dramatic and very significant loss of ice area.

from NASA

from U of Washington

Century-old ship logs reveal extent of today's drastic Arctic melt

"The differences between the two periods are stark."

mashable.com

 

[steveray]

As a volunteer on the ICC energy code committee, I would say that today was a good day after a proposal was disapproved after a long deliberation followed by a vote of 8 to 3. People who are both smart and intelligent prevailed over those who insist on changing the definition of everything and arbitrarily move the baseline in order to fit their agenda.

wwhitney, I am impressed by your persistence in pushing the false narrative. Reminds me of the year 2009 when pseudo-scientist and alarmist Al Gore - with absolute authority and confidence - claimed that there was a 75% chance that all of the Arctic ice would be gone in 7 years from then. Now I am not a mathematician, but 2009 plus 7 years equals the year 2016 - which was seven years ago. But in the year 2023, more of the Arctic is covered by ice than at any time since 2010. For the fact checkers: https:/weather.com

The silent majority disagree with the obnoxious European Union (the elite leaders thereof) who claim to represent the vast majority. When in fact there is the select few who manage the media and wikipedia and tell us to "follow the science".

I am not subscribing to any conspiracies, and I do think that we should become more energy efficient. But somehow the extremists (Nobel prize winner Al Gore) need to be moderated.

Thanks for volunteering...Paul Demers from the State of Maine on that committee is part of our RegionVI code development group as well...

 

[bill1952]

NYT article on PERC anti-electification efforts. Sounds like they'd be welcome on the ICC energy code committee.

 

[ICE]

Sounds like they'd be welcome on the ICC energy code committee.

Committees should be made up from groups with divergent points of view. Once it is all one sided we reach the point of ridiculing dissension....oh wait a minute, we are there.

 

[tmurray]

Green? I much prefer red. Maybe a nice blue.

Committing to paint 30% of their buildings green seems to be an odd stance for the government though.