Natural gas leaks cause fires, explosions, deaths, and disruptions all the time. Is it even worth it to use natural gas as an energy source? What are the benefits vs costs/dangers? How much would it cost to stop using it and convert everything to electricity?
This article states "The series also documented widespread damage. Leaking natural gas lines operated by Atmos Energy in North and Central Texas had led to explosions that blew up more than two dozen homes since 2006, killing nine people and injuring at least 22."
https://www.dentonrc.com/news/dallas-lawmaker-seeks-reforms-to-prevent-the-next-deadly-gas/article_400f1d9d-2f8d-5bc5-bca5-7d8aeba49066.html (https://www.dentonrc.com/news/dallas-lawmaker-seeks-reforms-to-prevent-the-next-deadly-gas/article_400f1d9d-2f8d-5bc5-bca5-7d8aeba49066.html)
Also there was the incident in the northeast recently where tons of houses in three towns were blown up by an overpressurization accident.
Quote from: Brian556 on December 25, 2018, 09:53:14 AM
Also there was the incident in the northeast recently where tons of houses in three towns were blown up by an overpressurization accident.
I was working at Stop & Shop when it happened. Fortunately, the town I live and work in (same one) is adjacent to at least one of those three, so nothing happened to us. Someone from Atlanta called my mom to ask if we were safe. A phone call we got on our home phone said that our town has had no incidents, and that nobody should call the police unless it actually happens.
Columbia Gas was at fault; my town uses National Grid exclusively.
Several businesses were closed for weeks. They're all open now.
(For those who have forgotten, the three towns affected were Lawrence, North Andover, and Andover; I'm not giving away mine.)
All forms of energy are dangerous. There's no way to get around that.
Electricity requires another layer of complexity -complex generating plants. Efficiency would also suffer.
Gas can accommodate usage surges much better due to easier storage - it is much easier to cope with a cold spell with heaters running on gas compared to electric AC straining the grid on a hot day.
Electricity - like any other energy product - is not 100% safe. There is enough direct impact - electrocution; and quite a few fires starting from damaged/overloaded wiring.
Last, but not the least - with price of copper going up and availability going down, things may become interesting for the grid..
Like '1', I live bordering the 3 towns affected by the Columbia Gas explosions/fires. Hasn't changed my opinion one bit, outside of the stronger judicial ass-kicking needed for the people that let easily-avoidable accidents happen.
Quote from: SectorZ on December 25, 2018, 02:36:25 PM
Like '1', I live bordering the 3 towns affected by the Columbia Gas explosions/fires. Hasn't changed my opinion one bit, outside of the stronger judicial ass-kicking needed for the people that let easily-avoidable accidents happen.
Yeah, the problem is not the danger of natural gas itself, but rather what happens when we allow infrastructure to crumble and/or regulations to be ignored.
How many people are electrocuted or die in fires caused by electricity? This question doesn't really address whether elimination of gas would be safer, but it shows that electricity is not safe, either. How many more people would be electrocuted or burned if we converted to all-electric heating and cooking? Is it more or less than the number of people killed by gas? There would be more wires, and more wires carrying higher voltage (since the appliances probably run on 240), and more electric heating elements. Each of these is another point of danger. Aside from practical concerns, we'd need some studies to determine if the conversion would even be likely to make things safer.
Just make sure that your furnace is serviced once a year, and the gas lines and meter inspected. The furnace needs it for cleanliness and efficiency reasons aside from the safety issues. Your gas supplier will do that for a fee.
Preferrably we should stop using natural gas (or at least regular natural gas). In order to increase safety and cut carbon emissions, it would be best to cut coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear energy use to practically zero. Also, since they are fossil fuels, they are going to run out soon anyway with the current rate of consumption (with the exception of nuclear energy). IIRC, we have approximately 50 years on oil, 125 years on natural gas, and 300 years on coal. But using these sources of energy in the masses we do now for even one more decade could have detrimental effects for the planet. While they're not perfect, hydroelectric, wind, solar, geothermal, and other renewable forms of energy are generally the way we want to go.
But if natural gas must be used, I have heard that liquified natural gas (LNG) is better than regular natural gas for things like safety, transportation, cutting carbon emissions, and more than regular natural gas.
"I have heard that" the fire that wiped out Paradise, CA (among other places) was due to poor maintenance by PG&E of their electrical infrastructure. As has been noted, nothing's safe if it's not maintained.
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on December 26, 2018, 12:56:44 AM
Preferrably we should stop using natural gas (or at least regular natural gas). In order to increase safety and cut carbon emissions, it would be best to cut coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear energy use to practically zero. Also, since they are fossil fuels, they are going to run out soon anyway with the current rate of consumption (with the exception of nuclear energy). IIRC, we have approximately 50 years on oil, 125 years on natural gas, and 300 years on coal.
Sounds like the discredited "peak oil" theories, based on projections that keep getting undermined by new discoveries and extraction technologies. There might be reasons not to use some or all of those sources, but not that we're using them up faster than we can find more.
QuoteBut if natural gas must be used, I have heard that liquified natural gas (LNG) is better than regular natural gas for things like safety, transportation, cutting carbon emissions, and more than regular natural gas.
Major costs (including energy consumption) from the process of refrigerating natural gas to -260F to turn it from gas to liquid, and keeping it frozen. Major LNG use is for bulk transport of natural gas across oceans, where it's impractical to run pipelines to transport at normal temperatures.
Quote from: oscar on December 26, 2018, 06:25:50 AM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on December 26, 2018, 12:56:44 AM
Preferrably we should stop using natural gas (or at least regular natural gas). In order to increase safety and cut carbon emissions, it would be best to cut coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear energy use to practically zero. Also, since they are fossil fuels, they are going to run out soon anyway with the current rate of consumption (with the exception of nuclear energy). IIRC, we have approximately 50 years on oil, 125 years on natural gas, and 300 years on coal.
Sounds like the discredited "peak oil" theories, based on projections that keep getting undermined by new discoveries and extraction technologies. There might be reasons not to use some or all of those sources, but not that we're using them up faster than we can find more.
Sounds also like the theory that it comes from "fossils" (as in dead dinosaurs) when in fact there is research that indicates that hydrocarbon compounds (natural gas, oils, kerosenes, etc.) are continually being created by natural processes deep within the crust of the Earth, research reinforced by the new discoveries that keep occurring.
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on December 26, 2018, 12:56:44 AM
Preferrably we should stop using natural gas (or at least regular natural gas). In order to increase safety and cut carbon emissions, it would be best to cut coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear energy use to practically zero. Also, since they are fossil fuels, they are going to run out soon anyway with the current rate of consumption (with the exception of nuclear energy). IIRC, we have approximately 50 years on oil, 125 years on natural gas, and 300 years on coal. But using these sources of energy in the masses we do now for even one more decade could have detrimental effects for the planet. While they're not perfect, hydroelectric, wind, solar, geothermal, and other renewable forms of energy are generally the way we want to go.
But if natural gas must be used, I have heard that liquified natural gas (LNG) is better than regular natural gas for things like safety, transportation, cutting carbon emissions, and more than regular natural gas.
The city of Saint-Hyacinthe, Québec and Energir (formely known as Gaz Metro) experiment a source of natural gas from biomethanation plant.
https://www.energir.com/en/about/media/news/local-renewable-natural-gas-available-in-energir-network/
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on December 26, 2018, 11:32:27 AM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on December 26, 2018, 12:56:44 AM
Preferrably we should stop using natural gas (or at least regular natural gas). In order to increase safety and cut carbon emissions, it would be best to cut coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear energy use to practically zero. Also, since they are fossil fuels, they are going to run out soon anyway with the current rate of consumption (with the exception of nuclear energy). IIRC, we have approximately 50 years on oil, 125 years on natural gas, and 300 years on coal. But using these sources of energy in the masses we do now for even one more decade could have detrimental effects for the planet. While they're not perfect, hydroelectric, wind, solar, geothermal, and other renewable forms of energy are generally the way we want to go.
But if natural gas must be used, I have heard that liquified natural gas (LNG) is better than regular natural gas for things like safety, transportation, cutting carbon emissions, and more than regular natural gas.
The city of Saint-Hyacinthe, Québec and Energir (formely known as Gaz Metro) experiment a source of natural gas from biomethanation plant.
https://www.energir.com/en/about/media/news/local-renewable-natural-gas-available-in-energir-network/
THere is a lot of work methasne extracted from all sorts of waste, from sewage to trash. I doubt there is enough to cover all the use, humans don't shit enough for that (even when cows are added into the equation). Something is better than nothing, though.
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on December 26, 2018, 12:56:44 AM
Preferrably we should stop using natural gas (or at least regular natural gas). In order to increase safety and cut carbon emissions, it would be best to cut coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear energy use to practically zero. Also, since they are fossil fuels, they are going to run out soon anyway with the current rate of consumption (with the exception of nuclear energy). IIRC, we have approximately 50 years on oil, 125 years on natural gas, and 300 years on coal. But using these sources of energy in the masses we do now for even one more decade could have detrimental effects for the planet. While they're not perfect, hydroelectric, wind, solar, geothermal, and other renewable forms of energy are generally the way we want to go.
{...trying to think of a snarky comeback to another "sky-is-falling" global warming Chicken Little that won't get the thread locked...}
:bigass:
And I thought we were supposed to use nuclear energy to eliminate that deadly carbon dioxide (without which plants can't survive, and produce the oxygen that we need to survive).
Quote from: hbelkins on December 26, 2018, 01:28:02 PM
And I thought we were supposed to use nuclear energy to eliminate that deadly carbon dioxide (without which plants can't survive, and produce the oxygen that we need to survive).
The atmosphere should contain between 180 and 300 parts per million carbon dioxide as part of a balanced cycle. However, it is unbalanced, containing 400 parts per million right now, and it continues to increase. Excess carbon dioxide warms up the Earth. (So do other gases, but they're found in much smaller quantities.)
Nuclear energy is an improvement on fossil fuels, but it isn't as good as wind or solar energy.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 26, 2018, 01:28:02 PM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on December 26, 2018, 12:56:44 AM
Preferrably we should stop using natural gas (or at least regular natural gas). In order to increase safety and cut carbon emissions, it would be best to cut coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear energy use to practically zero. Also, since they are fossil fuels, they are going to run out soon anyway with the current rate of consumption (with the exception of nuclear energy). IIRC, we have approximately 50 years on oil, 125 years on natural gas, and 300 years on coal. But using these sources of energy in the masses we do now for even one more decade could have detrimental effects for the planet. While they're not perfect, hydroelectric, wind, solar, geothermal, and other renewable forms of energy are generally the way we want to go.
{...trying to think of a snarky comeback to another "sky-is-falling" global warming Chicken Little that won't get the thread locked...}
:bigass:
And I thought we were supposed to use nuclear energy to eliminate that deadly carbon dioxide (without which plants can't survive, and produce the oxygen that we need to survive).
:banghead: :banghead:
Unless Chicken Little has morphed out of the realm of fiction, cloned himself, and impersonated millions of concerned civilians, credible climate scientists, and a large group of world leaders, then I don't think this is some laughable joke. Whether you believe it or not, it is scientific fact that is indisputable. This is the mess that me, my peers, and our descendants have been left with. This is the mess that we will now have to clean up after over a century of mass irresponsible treatment of the planet. And the importance of this cannot be undermined. I and my fellow citizens must be considerate to future generations. It frustrates me immensely that this is such a divisive issue, and that doubt and denial is as widespread as it is, when it really shouldn't be. We need to all come together, and take action immediately, because this is very serious.
Yes, while nuclear energy emits far, far less CO2 than the other fossil fuels, it is still very unsafe to use in the grand scheme of things for
other reasons. While the chances of something like Chernobyl happening are indescribably slim, there's still massive danger for this form of energy. When incidents like that do happen, the effects are truly horrific. The Chernobyl disaster has caused severe suffering and problems for the people of that area, and it will also be uninhabitable to humans for tens of thousands of years. On a more widespread, frequent scale, nuclear energy always causes certain problems when it is used. Nuclear waste must be stored in very specific, obscure places underground - also where it cannot contaminate groundwater - and it may take thousands of years to decompose. Also, nuclear power plants can negatively affect aquatic life for a ways around the plant location. All in all, it would really be best to not build any more nuclear power plants anywhere - it will simply be much safer that way.
Also, while, yes, plants consume carbon dioxide, saying that more CO2 will help those plants immensely is a major oversimplification of science (borrowing words from a very good article I read on global warming recently). Plants must have water to live, but too much water is
not good for those plants, such as when severe floods come through or there is simply just too much rain in a short period of time. The same is true with CO2. Excesses of CO2 emissions will ultimately just cause bad thing after bad thing as climate change would accelerate. Also, global warming may decrease crop production by 30%, so that is certainly not good for plants.
I'm really not trying to start conflict here (and this issue should never be divisive in the first place), but the magnitude of this issue cannot be undermined, and it
is real, whether you believe it or not.
I think the above post outlines how I feel pretty well. I only disagree in that I think nuclear power is the best option moving forward, but getting the government to fund it will be next to impossible. Anyone who thinks climate change due to global warming isn't important or doesn't exist is just making the problem worse.
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on December 26, 2018, 05:56:46 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 26, 2018, 01:28:02 PM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on December 26, 2018, 12:56:44 AM
Preferrably we should stop using natural gas (or at least regular natural gas). In order to increase safety and cut carbon emissions, it would be best to cut coal, oil, natural gas, and nuclear energy use to practically zero. Also, since they are fossil fuels, they are going to run out soon anyway with the current rate of consumption (with the exception of nuclear energy). IIRC, we have approximately 50 years on oil, 125 years on natural gas, and 300 years on coal. But using these sources of energy in the masses we do now for even one more decade could have detrimental effects for the planet. While they're not perfect, hydroelectric, wind, solar, geothermal, and other renewable forms of energy are generally the way we want to go.
{...trying to think of a snarky comeback to another "sky-is-falling" global warming Chicken Little that won't get the thread locked...}
:bigass:
And I thought we were supposed to use nuclear energy to eliminate that deadly carbon dioxide (without which plants can't survive, and produce the oxygen that we need to survive).
:banghead: :banghead:
Unless Chicken Little has morphed out of the realm of fiction, cloned himself, and impersonated millions of concerned civilians, credible climate scientists, and a large group of world leaders, then I don't think this is some laughable joke. Whether you believe it or not, it is scientific fact that is indisputable. This is the mess that me, my peers, and our descendants have been left with. This is the mess that we will now have to clean up after over a century of mass irresponsible treatment of the planet. And the importance of this cannot be undermined. I and my fellow citizens must be considerate to future generations. It frustrates me immensely that this is such a divisive issue, and that doubt and denial is as widespread as it is, when it really shouldn't be. We need to all come together, and take action immediately, because this is very serious.
Yes, while nuclear energy emits far, far less CO2 than the other fossil fuels, it is still very unsafe to use in the grand scheme of things for other reasons. While the chances of something like Chernobyl happening are indescribably slim, there's still massive danger for this form of energy. When incidents like that do happen, the effects are truly horrific. The Chernobyl disaster has caused severe suffering and problems for the people of that area, and it will also be uninhabitable to humans for tens of thousands of years. On a more widespread, frequent scale, nuclear energy always causes certain problems when it is used. Nuclear waste must be stored in very specific, obscure places underground - also where it cannot contaminate groundwater - and it may take thousands of years to decompose. Also, nuclear power plants can negatively affect aquatic life for a ways around the plant location. All in all, it would really be best to not build any more nuclear power plants anywhere - it will simply be much safer that way.
Also, while, yes, plants consume carbon dioxide, saying that more CO2 will help those plants immensely is a major oversimplification of science (borrowing words from a very good article I read on global warming recently). Plants must have water to live, but too much water is not good for those plants, such as when severe floods come through or there is simply just too much rain in a short period of time. The same is true with CO2. Excesses of CO2 emissions will ultimately just cause bad thing after bad thing as climate change would accelerate. Also, global warming may decrease crop production by 30%, so that is certainly not good for plants.
I'm really not trying to start conflict here (and this issue should never be divisive in the first place), but the magnitude of this issue cannot be undermined, and it is real, whether you believe it or not.
There are no scientific facts which are indisputable. Either it is indisputable religious fact, or a scientific theory open to discussion.
Quote from: kalvado on December 26, 2018, 07:31:31 PM
There are no scientific facts which are indisputable. Either it is indisputable religious fact, or a scientific theory open to discussion.
Global warming
is open to discussion. This is why there are many different estimates for what will happen in 2100, and why people disagree on what the best solution is. However, people claiming global warming doesn't exist are not making their claims based on science.
Quote from: 1 on December 26, 2018, 07:36:17 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 26, 2018, 07:31:31 PM
There are no scientific facts which are indisputable. Either it is indisputable religious fact, or a scientific theory open to discussion.
Global warming is open to discussion. This is why there are many different estimates for what will happen in 2100, and why people disagree on what the best solution is. However, people claiming global warming doesn't exist are not making their claims based on science.
It really depends on how you define science. What is the definition you are using?
Quote from: kalvado on December 26, 2018, 07:39:47 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 26, 2018, 07:36:17 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 26, 2018, 07:31:31 PM
There are no scientific facts which are indisputable. Either it is indisputable religious fact, or a scientific theory open to discussion.
Global warming is open to discussion. This is why there are many different estimates for what will happen in 2100, and why people disagree on what the best solution is. However, people claiming global warming doesn't exist are not making their claims based on science.
It really depends on how you define science. What is the definition you are using?
The scientific method -- observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable. None of that can be utilized to evaluate "global warming", which is based on computer models with many variables. There just isn't a way to scientifically prove what happened 10 thousand years ago, or a million years ago, etc.
Quote from: Beltway on December 26, 2018, 07:50:20 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 26, 2018, 07:39:47 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 26, 2018, 07:36:17 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 26, 2018, 07:31:31 PM
There are no scientific facts which are indisputable. Either it is indisputable religious fact, or a scientific theory open to discussion.
Global warming is open to discussion. This is why there are many different estimates for what will happen in 2100, and why people disagree on what the best solution is. However, people claiming global warming doesn't exist are not making their claims based on science.
It really depends on how you define science. What is the definition you are using?
The scientific method -- observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable. None of that can be utilized to evaluate "global warming", which is based on computer models with many variables. There just isn't a way to scientifically prove what happened 10 thousand years ago, or a million years ago, etc.
Even using data starting in around 1850 when temperatures started being recorded, it's clear that global warming exists.
Quote from: 1 on December 26, 2018, 07:59:31 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 26, 2018, 07:50:20 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 26, 2018, 07:39:47 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 26, 2018, 07:36:17 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 26, 2018, 07:31:31 PM
There are no scientific facts which are indisputable. Either it is indisputable religious fact, or a scientific theory open to discussion.
Global warming is open to discussion. This is why there are many different estimates for what will happen in 2100, and why people disagree on what the best solution is. However, people claiming global warming doesn't exist are not making their claims based on science.
It really depends on how you define science. What is the definition you are using?
The scientific method -- observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable. None of that can be utilized to evaluate "global warming", which is based on computer models with many variables. There just isn't a way to scientifically prove what happened 10 thousand years ago, or a million years ago, etc.
Even using data starting in around 1850 when temperatures started being recorded, it's clear that global warming exists.
Exactly.
Also, there are just blatant observations such as the fact (I can't remember the exact wording) that all of the years since the year 2000 except one have set records for being some of the hottest years since temperatures started being recorded. The other year that set a record was in the 20th Century (the 1900's) - so not long ago.
Quote from: 1 on December 26, 2018, 07:59:31 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 26, 2018, 07:50:20 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 26, 2018, 07:39:47 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 26, 2018, 07:36:17 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 26, 2018, 07:31:31 PM
There are no scientific facts which are indisputable. Either it is indisputable religious fact, or a scientific theory open to discussion.
Global warming is open to discussion. This is why there are many different estimates for what will happen in 2100, and why people disagree on what the best solution is. However, people claiming global warming doesn't exist are not making their claims based on science.
It really depends on how you define science. What is the definition you are using?
The scientific method -- observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable. None of that can be utilized to evaluate "global warming", which is based on computer models with many variables. There just isn't a way to scientifically prove what happened 10 thousand years ago, or a million years ago, etc.
Even using data starting in around 1850 when temperatures started being recorded, it's clear that global warming exists.
You're behind the curve. It is now called climate change.
And talking about falsiifiable... There is a nice passage Popper has about science and wanna-be science...
Quote from: kalvado on December 26, 2018, 08:27:17 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 26, 2018, 07:59:31 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 26, 2018, 07:50:20 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 26, 2018, 07:39:47 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 26, 2018, 07:36:17 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 26, 2018, 07:31:31 PM
There are no scientific facts which are indisputable. Either it is indisputable religious fact, or a scientific theory open to discussion.
Global warming is open to discussion. This is why there are many different estimates for what will happen in 2100, and why people disagree on what the best solution is. However, people claiming global warming doesn't exist are not making their claims based on science.
It really depends on how you define science. What is the definition you are using?
The scientific method -- observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable. None of that can be utilized to evaluate "global warming", which is based on computer models with many variables. There just isn't a way to scientifically prove what happened 10 thousand years ago, or a million years ago, etc.
Even using data starting in around 1850 when temperatures started being recorded, it's clear that global warming exists.
You're behind the curve. It is now called climate change.
And talking about falsiifiable... There is a nice passage Popper has about science and wanna-be science...
Um...what? Global warming and climate change are not the same thing. Just like how weather and climate are not the same thing. Global warming is just one effect of climate change, others being sea level rise, extreme weather events, etc.
And I'd like to see some research that falsifies the global warming or climate change theories.
Quote from: 1 on December 26, 2018, 07:59:31 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 26, 2018, 07:50:20 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 26, 2018, 07:39:47 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 26, 2018, 07:36:17 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 26, 2018, 07:31:31 PM
There are no scientific facts which are indisputable. Either it is indisputable religious fact, or a scientific theory open to discussion.
Global warming is open to discussion. This is why there are many different estimates for what will happen in 2100, and why people disagree on what the best solution is. However, people claiming global warming doesn't exist are not making their claims based on science.
It really depends on how you define science. What is the definition you are using?
The scientific method -- observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable. None of that can be utilized to evaluate "global warming", which is based on computer models with many variables. There just isn't a way to scientifically prove what happened 10 thousand years ago, or a million years ago, etc.
Even using data starting in around 1850 when temperatures started being recorded, it's clear that global warming exists.
1) Heat islands due to urbanization
2) How do you take the "temperature" of the world
Quote from: csw on December 26, 2018, 09:02:47 PM
Quote from: kalvado on December 26, 2018, 08:27:17 PM
Quote from: 1 on December 26, 2018, 07:59:31 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 26, 2018, 07:50:20 PM
The scientific method -- observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable. None of that can be utilized to evaluate "global warming", which is based on computer models with many variables. There just isn't a way to scientifically prove what happened 10 thousand years ago, or a million years ago, etc.
Even using data starting in around 1850 when temperatures started being recorded, it's clear that global warming exists.
You're behind the curve. It is now called climate change.
And talking about falsiifiable... There is a nice passage Popper has about science and wanna-be science...
Um...what? Global warming and climate change are not the same thing. Just like how weather and climate are not the same thing. Global warming is just one effect of climate change, others being sea level rise, extreme weather events, etc.
And I'd like to see some research that falsifies the global warming or climate change theories.
That is backwards. A theory needs to be falsifiable.
Why do theories have to be falsifiable? Because non-falsifiable theories don't advance knowledge. Anything non-falsifiable is by definition 'true'. More than that, it is true no matter what observations are made, and no matter what the universe looks like. The point of scientific theories is to provide tools to improve understanding of reality and to allow us to effectively predict outcomes from initial conditions. But a non-falsifiable theory by definition must be true in all possible outcomes, so applying it doesn't actually tell us anything about what is happening and what the outcome will be.
Quote from: csw on December 26, 2018, 09:02:47 PMUm...what? Global warming and climate change are not the same thing. Just like how weather and climate are not the same thing. Global warming is just one effect of climate change, others being sea level rise, extreme weather events, etc.
And I'd like to see some research that falsifies the global warming or climate change theories.
Do you know what "falsifiable" means in this context?
Climate change is very real, and very indisputable, as others have mentioned. Global warming is an effect of climate change, but there are many.
Some of my peers used to cite a colder-than-average day as evidence that global warming does not exist. I have heard many ridiculous things in life, but that took the cake!
Sure I understand what "falsifiable" means, perhaps my previous post wasn't properly worded. The theory of climate change is falsifiable. Earlier, a claim was made that "global warming is based on computer models with many variables. There just isn't a way to scientifically prove what happened 10 thousand years ago, or a million years ago, etc."
- Global warming theory is based on temperature observations from the last 150 years or so that show a trend of increasing temperatures. Sure, they may have used a computer to handle all of the data, but that's not a "computer model".
- As far as "How do you take the 'temperature' of the world"... read this article. (http://"https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-do-scientists-measure-global-temperature")
- Conveniently, there is a 4 billion year old rock and fossil record to tell us "what happened 10 thousand years ago, or a million years ago". Of course, you can't "scientifically prove" it because of falsifiability. But to ignore this source of information is silly.
I think this debate about falsifiability is a red herring to distract from the fact that climate change is a widely accepted and agreed-upon scientific theory.
Climate change is a widely accepted and agreed-upon -political- theory. A "4 billion year old rock and fossil record" -- nobody was recording history before about 6,000 years ago, so there is no way of knowing exactly what happened at some alleged period millions or billions of years ago. When advocates say something is "very indisputable" you see signs of opinion being claimed as fact.
Quote from: Beltway on December 26, 2018, 10:28:46 PM
Climate change is a widely accepted and agreed-upon -political- theory.
This is the problem. I really wished I wouldn't have to spell this out. Climate change and taking care of the environment used to be a bipartisan thing. Everyone (or most people)
used to be able to agree on that. Then for some very bizarre and ridiculous reason, 10-20 years ago, something changed. Now it is a partisan issue, and now it is divisive. During the time when we most needed to come together and take prompt and responsible action, caring about the planet suddenly turned political. Fossil fuel companies, like many big businesses, are corrupt, and they'll do anything to get more money. They are funneling millions of dollars to politicians who they know don't value science, and they are brainwashing their supporters into believing climate change is a hoax. This isn't the only reason for the phenomenon of climate change denial, but it is a big one. Please, please do not fall victim to this. The only reason there is a such a large occurrence of climate change denial is because of certain politicians, fossil fuel companies, and conspiracies - it's not because it's "fake science."
Climate change is
not a political theory - it is a scientific theory, and a very, very solid one at that. Modern politics and corruption have twisted this around into something it should never have been, and we cannot believe these lies.
Ok, I don't think anything will change your opinion that climate change isn't real. I'm not going to debate this any more.
Getting back to the original question: How does natural gas compare as an energy source to the practical alternatives? For example, coal -- does the push locally to block new natural gas pipelines hinder efforts to replace coal with (supposedly) cleaner natural gas? Compressed natural gas is also a popular alternative to diesel for public transit (or people driving gasoline-powered cars rather than use transit), so there too it might be a less bad alternative until better options become practical.
Some no-carbon alternatives have their issues or limitations too. For example, wind turbines sometimes kill birds (and for some people are eyesores, though I think they are things of beauty). Also, wind and especially solar need costly energy storage or other backup since wind sometimes isn't there when you need it, and solar doesn't work at all at night. Not many new hydropower installations are being built. Indeed, environmentalists have pushed for dam teardowns, apparently unconcerned that global warming won't exactly do wonders for the fish whose migrations will be unimpeded after the teardowns.
Looking at the alternatives for natural gas, it's common knowledge that coal isn't going to survive much longer. Sure, there'll be pockets of civilization who still use coal, that's to be expected. But I don't think that there's going to be new coal infrastructure constructed after the current presidential administration, if any will be built right now. I'd mark off coal as a dead end - we've explored every possibility.
Natural gas itself harms the environment, so minus political support right there, and while it is cheap and plentiful, it won't be that way for long. I do expect it to still be alive and kicking by the time I die, but otherwise I don't expect it to be popular by then.
Wind and solar are definitely becoming alluring in this day and age, as technology and innovation continually improve these energy resources. Batteries storing the energy produced by these sources are getting bigger, cheaper, and more resilient, and finally these two industries - to my knowledge anyways - seem to be somewhat under regulated, so I'd hazard to say wind and solar farm construction would increase in the next few decades. If any power grid improvements, or pushes for things like solar/wind powered cars, are part of this construction, perhaps wind and solar would dominate the US power grid, with natural gas and coal taking a distant second and third.
Nuclear, in the US at least, probably won't see any future. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl destroyed any chance for any new nuclear plants to be constructed here. I have heard of improvements such as thorium nuclear plants, but who knows if those can sway the public. Ditto with dams - people don't like them as they're eyesores. Still though, both sources of power have potential.
Hydrogen fusion power has potential. The main blockade is trying to make it easier and affordable to harness, and it might take a technological breakthrough to figure that issue out.
This is my conjecture, and honestly I'm just basing it off of my knowledge. Feel free to poke holes in any audacious/inane statements I've made.
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on December 26, 2018, 10:49:48 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 26, 2018, 10:28:46 PM
... and we cannot believe these lies.
OK, so people who disagree with you are liars... and "brainwashed". Nice way to attempt to get people to agree with you.
Quote from: Beltway on December 26, 2018, 11:45:50 PM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on December 26, 2018, 10:49:48 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 26, 2018, 10:28:46 PM
... and we cannot believe these lies.
OK, so people who disagree with you are liars... and "brainwashed". Nice way to attempt to get people to agree with you.
They are not liars because I disagree with them, but because they are stating lies.
If a politician convinces their supporters to believe a lie, then that is by definition brainwashing. This is not an attack on the people who are "brainwashed," but it says more about the power and corruption of the politician, and the fossil fuel companies who are pulling the strings.
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on December 26, 2018, 10:49:48 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 26, 2018, 10:28:46 PM
Climate change is a widely accepted and agreed-upon -political- theory.
This is the problem. I really wished I wouldn't have to spell this out. Climate change and taking care of the environment used to be a bipartisan thing. Everyone (or most people) used to be able to agree on that. Then for some very bizarre and ridiculous reason, 10-20 years ago, something changed. Now it is a partisan issue, and now it is divisive. During the time when we most needed to come together and take prompt and responsible action, caring about the planet suddenly turned political. Fossil fuel companies, like many big businesses, are corrupt, and they'll do anything to get more money. They are funneling millions of dollars to politicians who they know don't value science, and they are brainwashing their supporters into believing climate change is a hoax. This isn't the only reason for the phenomenon of climate change denial, but it is a big one. Please, please do not fall victim to this. The only reason there is a such a large occurrence of climate change denial is because of certain politicians, fossil fuel companies, and conspiracies - it's not because it's "fake science."
Climate change is not a political theory - it is a scientific theory, and a very, very solid one at that. Modern politics and corruption have twisted this around into something it should never have been, and we cannot believe these lies.
What happened within 10-20 years is that some high profile predictions turned out to be false (remember hockeystick?), and ethics issues with data handling were uncovered - and other ethics issues continue to emerge. This basically kills the falsifiable nature of climatology as a science.
Similar issues in technical disciplines would - and did - ended up in boycott to people involved. But climatology basically abandoned scientific path and became a mixture of politics and religion at that point, with "consensus between political leaders" being main "scientific" argument.
There is a lot of bullshit being pushed under the climate change umbrella, some things make no sense other than causing the sense of urgency in "thisissajens!" mob. As facts are now "indisputable", scientific approach became impossible - which is very bad. The overall system apparently is much more complex than it was envisioned, and stakes are extremely high both ways.
Results of increased carbon dioxide concentration are mixed, solar activity is doing funny things - and overall response is complex, with facts not supporting the cataclysmic theory.
Quote from: Beltway on December 26, 2018, 11:45:50 PM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on December 26, 2018, 10:49:48 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 26, 2018, 10:28:46 PM
... and we cannot believe these lies.
OK, so people who disagree with you are liars... and "brainwashed". Nice way to attempt to get people to agree with you.
Some things are
not a matter of agreeing and disagreeing, because they are solely based upon facts.
Climate change is one of those things, and I'm not talking about the future, I'm talking about the present and the past 15-20 years. If you cannot see it's real, then I don't know what to tell you. This, I guess:
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on December 27, 2018, 12:03:27 AM
If a politician convinces their supporters to believe a lie, then that is by definition brainwashing. This is not an attack on the people who are "brainwashed," but it says more about the power and corruption of the politician
+1
Quote from: webny99 on December 27, 2018, 09:00:11 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 26, 2018, 11:45:50 PM
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on December 26, 2018, 10:49:48 PM
Quote from: Beltway on December 26, 2018, 10:28:46 PM
... and we cannot believe these lies.
OK, so people who disagree with you are liars... and "brainwashed". Nice way to attempt to get people to agree with you.
Some things are not a matter of agreeing and disagreeing, because they are solely based upon facts.
Climate change is one of those things, and I'm not talking about the future, I'm talking about the present and the past 15-20 years. If you cannot see it's real, then I don't know what to tell you. This, I guess:
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on December 27, 2018, 12:03:27 AM
If a politician convinces their supporters to believe a lie, then that is by definition brainwashing. This is not an attack on the people who are "brainwashed," but it says more about the power and corruption of the politician
The "man caused", or "A.G.W." or "man influenced climate change" is the single largest (in terms of numbers of brainwashed) scam ever perpetrated upon the worlds population. It's ultimate goal is the transfer of wealth from the first world to all of the other "worlds" around this planet. In my opinion most "believers" in this hoax are guilt ridden folks who feel that "America must be punished and made less powerful" for it's perceived "sins". In other words they're not thinking.
The periodic chart of elements is science, for one example. Climatology is not.
Quote from: Beltway on December 27, 2018, 09:11:21 AM
Quote from: webny99 on December 27, 2018, 09:00:11 AM
Some things are not a matter of agreeing and disagreeing, because they are solely based upon facts.
Climate change is one of those things, and I'm not talking about the future, I'm talking about the present and the past 15-20 years. If you cannot see it's real, then I don't know what to tell you. This, I guess:
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on December 27, 2018, 12:03:27 AM
If a politician convinces their supporters to believe a lie, then that is by definition brainwashing. This is not an attack on the people who are "brainwashed," but it says more about the power and corruption of the politician
The "man caused", or "A.G.W." or "man influenced climate change" is the single largest (in terms of numbers of brainwashed) scam ever perpetrated upon the worlds population. It's ultimate goal is the transfer of wealth from the first world to all of the other "worlds" around this planet. In my opinion most "believers" in this hoax are guilt ridden folks who feel that "America must be punished and made less powerful" for it's perceived "sins". In other words they're not thinking.
The periodic chart of elements is science, for one example. Climatology is not.
Wait a second.
I never
said humans caused climate change. I said
it is happening. Regardless of our opinions and whatever else on the how and why, I think the most important thing is that we agree that climate change is indeed happening.
For the record, I don't think human activities are totally unrelated to climate change, but it is not human activities alone causing it, either. It is a sign of the times, more than anything.
Warmest years on record:
1. 2016
2. 2015
3. 2017 (NASA puts 2017 second instead of third, but I couldn't see the whole list)
4. 2014
5. 2010
6. 2013
7. 2005 (one source has 2013 and 2005 switched)
8. 2009
9. 1998
10. 2012 or 2007, depending on source
Data starts 1880, but you can see a trend even within this list. 2018 is not complete yet and therefore not ranked, but it is expected to be #3-#5.
Re: urban heat islands: it's happening everywhere, not just in urban areas. This includes oceans that are hundreds of miles from land and thousands of miles from any urban areas.
Quote from: 1 on December 27, 2018, 09:37:17 AM
Warmest years on record:
1. 2016
2. 2015
3. 2017 (NASA puts 2017 second instead of third, but I couldn't see the whole list)
4. 2014
5. 2010
6. 2013
7. 2005 (one source has 2013 and 2005 switched)
8. 2009
9. 1998
10. 2012 or 2007, depending on source
Data starts 1880, but you can see a trend even within this list. 2018 is not complete yet and therefore not ranked, but it is expected to be #3-#5.
Re: urban heat islands: it's happening everywhere, not just in urban areas. This includes oceans that are hundreds of miles from land and thousands of miles from any urban areas.
I couldn't find the methodology behind these numbers.
Quote from: webny99 on December 27, 2018, 09:24:27 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 27, 2018, 09:11:21 AM
Quote from: webny99 on December 27, 2018, 09:00:11 AM
Some things are not a matter of agreeing and disagreeing, because they are solely based upon facts.
Climate change is one of those things, and I'm not talking about the future, I'm talking about the present and the past 15-20 years. If you cannot see it's real, then I don't know what to tell you. This, I guess:
Quote from: adventurernumber1 on December 27, 2018, 12:03:27 AM
If a politician convinces their supporters to believe a lie, then that is by definition brainwashing. This is not an attack on the people who are "brainwashed," but it says more about the power and corruption of the politician
The "man caused", or "A.G.W." or "man influenced climate change" is the single largest (in terms of numbers of brainwashed) scam ever perpetrated upon the worlds population. It's ultimate goal is the transfer of wealth from the first world to all of the other "worlds" around this planet. In my opinion most "believers" in this hoax are guilt ridden folks who feel that "America must be punished and made less powerful" for it's perceived "sins". In other words they're not thinking.
The periodic chart of elements is science, for one example. Climatology is not.
Wait a second.
I never said humans caused climate change. I said it is happening. Regardless of our opinions and whatever else on the how and why, I think the most important thing is that we agree that climate change is indeed happening.
For the record, I don't think human activities are totally unrelated to climate change, but it is not human activities alone causing it, either. It is a sign of the times, more than anything.
Climate is not a static thing and never will be. On a large scale, we're either going into or coming out of ice ages, which for most of life on earth, are the real catastrophes. So, if by your assertion that humans have a contribution to the current changes, what part is caused by transportation, what part is caused by urbanization, what part is caused by agricultural practices, population growth, etc.? Each has an impact on energy consumption and pollution production. There are so many things thrown under the umbrella of "climate change," that it's tough to take a lot of it seriously as it tends to elicit emotional responses rather than logical discourse. The dumbest choices humanity makes historically happen during emotional times. When people make rational, well thought out and researched decisions, true beneficial advancement occurs.
I have a small off-grid solar/battery and wind turbine system in my toolshed, and the wind turbine is essentially a yard ornament as I don't have an ideal location for it. The solar system has a 200W solar panel and 8 Trojan T-105 6V deep cycle golf cart batteries storing it's charge with a 600W inverter. I charge all of the battery-powered electrical devices and tools I have, except for the Hustler Zeon zero turn riding mower, which takes more power to charge than the system provides. I have no electric vehicles at this point as I can't justify the prices of any that I would actually not suffer from boredom driving, but pretty much every other tool or device that cleans up the yard or the woods runs on electrical power. Our power bills are actually pretty low as a result of charging everything we can out in the toolshed, replacing all lighting inside and outside the house with LED, and keeping the HVAC settings on the programmable thermostats set lower than average in the winter and higher than average in the summer. However, the batteries for the solar system and the zero turn electrical mower are at end of life and need replacing. The mower can't keep batteries more than 4 years without replacement at $1000 despite keeping them maintained with water and not drawing them much below 50% depth of discharge. The batteries in the toolshed are now 12 years old and don't hold much anymore for night charging of even small devices, so pretty much everything is getting charged during daylight hours. It'll take about $1600 to replace all of the batteries, but it's still a pittance compared to any other battery technology right now like lithium or flow. Based on our current finances with 3 little ones, I can't talk my wife into replacing any of them or to even get her or the kids to take the time to take things to the toolshed to charge. Despite my trying to make a difference for the world, I can't even get buy in at my own house to use the free (prepaid) electricity in the toolshed. So, in conclusion, the current state of solar/battery technology isn't where I would recommend anyone else getting their feet wet at this point. It needs to become a lot cheaper and easier to setup and use before anyone other than engineers like myself or those with excess finances pull the trigger. It certainly isn't anywhere near what it would take to make a substantial difference in energy production to offset the growth in energy consumption worldwide. It's going to take a lot more work to get the prices down to reasonable levels for anything other than utility scale projects.
The Earth has always gone through warming and cooling phases. This is why there was an ice age tens of thousands of years ago, and at that time there used to be a land bridge connecting Asia and North America (i.e. modern-day Russia and Alaska). Obviously, the Earth has now been in a warming phase. This was part of the natural cycle. However, the problem is that it is now happening much faster than it normally would naturally. This is directly because of humans and our activities (burning fossil fuels, driving gas cars, etc.) that put out too many CO2 emissions. This is anthropogenic climate change. Climate change exists, and it is affected by humans. This has been seen since the Industrial Revolution in the late 19th Century, since industry (and later mass consumption) kicked off, and the graphs and data solidly support this. There is absolutely no doubt that climate change is real, and we are accelerating it.
It's a very understandable approach to be wary of excess pathos (emotion). It is very reasonable to want to stay as sober as possible emotionally so that rational thought and decision-making can be most facilitated. The reason pathos is often evoked is because the situation is so dire, and the consequences will truly be disastrous, and numerous. Thinking about how we want our great-grandchildren to live on an earth no worse than we live on now (or even better) may help someone realize why we need to take care of the planet right now. But I completely understand where you're coming from. The severity of this issue cannot be undermined, and it is very serious, but it is always good to value the ability to not be so bogged down that it is hard for us to make rational decisions.
I see a whole lot of people commenting here who weren't alive during the 1970s, back when the next ice age was being predicted based on climate trends.
And how much stuff has Al Gore been wrong about? Lots.
A century from now, people are going to be asking why so many people way back then were worked up over this issue as they continue to happily live their lives.
Just go back 15-20 to see what predictions were for around now. In most cases, they are horrendously incorrect. Many of those predictions said that coastlines would be under water; yet there's nothing today to suggest water levels are any different than they were at the times of the predictions.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 27, 2018, 12:41:47 PM
Just go back 15-20 to see what predictions were for around now. In most cases, they are horrendously incorrect. Many of those predictions said that coastlines would be under water; yet there's nothing today to suggest water levels are any different than they were at the times of the predictions.
My parents house fronts on waters that are at sea level and directly connect to the oceans, a Chesapeake Bay estuary. In 40 years there has been no noticeable change in sea level on their dock or any other dock or seawall in the vicinity. Tides go up and down twice a day, but the median has not changed.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 27, 2018, 12:14:04 PM
I see a whole lot of people commenting here who weren't alive during the 1970s, back when the next ice age was being predicted based on climate trends.
And how much stuff has Al Gore been wrong about? Lots.
A century from now, people are going to be asking why so many people way back then were worked up over this issue as they continue to happily live their lives.
Frankly speaking, the idea of reducing fossil fuel consumption is fairly sound IMHO - regardless of climate effects. Problem is that it is being pushed through defying all the logic - and without realizing that entire economy is at stake.
But overall, we need more energy - and my personal opinion that without fusion reactors humanity has only that long to live, probably double digit number of years.
Quote from: hbelkins on December 27, 2018, 12:14:04 PM
I see a whole lot of people commenting here who weren't alive during the 1970s, back when the next ice age was being predicted based on climate trends.
And how much stuff has Al Gore been wrong about? Lots.
A century from now, people are going to be asking why so many people way back then were worked up over this issue as they continue to happily live their lives.
Wow.
I believe the scientists, not crackpots.
Quote from: Beltway on December 27, 2018, 12:44:51 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 27, 2018, 12:41:47 PM
Just go back 15-20 to see what predictions were for around now. In most cases, they are horrendously incorrect. Many of those predictions said that coastlines would be under water; yet there's nothing today to suggest water levels are any different than they were at the times of the predictions.
My parents house fronts on waters that are at sea level and directly connect to the oceans, a Chesapeake Bay estuary. In 40 years there has been no noticeable change in sea level on their dock or any other dock or seawall in the vicinity. Tides go up and down twice a day, but the median has not changed.
NOAA says differently.
Quote from: Rothman on December 28, 2018, 09:17:13 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 27, 2018, 12:14:04 PM
I see a whole lot of people commenting here who weren't alive during the 1970s, back when the next ice age was being predicted based on climate trends.
And how much stuff has Al Gore been wrong about? Lots.
A century from now, people are going to be asking why so many people way back then were worked up over this issue as they continue to happily live their lives.
Wow.
I believe the scientists, not crackpots.
Whether you believe scientists, politicians, priests - your right to do so is protected by the First Amendment.
Quote from: kalvado on December 28, 2018, 09:27:36 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 28, 2018, 09:17:13 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 27, 2018, 12:14:04 PM
I see a whole lot of people commenting here who weren't alive during the 1970s, back when the next ice age was being predicted based on climate trends.
And how much stuff has Al Gore been wrong about? Lots.
A century from now, people are going to be asking why so many people way back then were worked up over this issue as they continue to happily live their lives.
Wow.
I believe the scientists, not crackpots.
Whether you believe scientists, politicians, priests - your right to do so is protected by the First Amendment.
Freedom of expression does not remove the consequences of exercising that right.
Quote from: Rothman on December 28, 2018, 09:44:35 AM
Quote from: kalvado on December 28, 2018, 09:27:36 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 28, 2018, 09:17:13 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 27, 2018, 12:14:04 PM
I see a whole lot of people commenting here who weren't alive during the 1970s, back when the next ice age was being predicted based on climate trends.
And how much stuff has Al Gore been wrong about? Lots.
A century from now, people are going to be asking why so many people way back then were worked up over this issue as they continue to happily live their lives.
Wow.
I believe the scientists, not crackpots.
Whether you believe scientists, politicians, priests - your right to do so is protected by the First Amendment.
Freedom of expression does not remove the consequences of exercising that right.
Yep, so when people are repeating something they read (which was already misinterpreted by a journalist) - I feel like they preach science. Or what they think science is.
Quote from: kalvado on December 28, 2018, 09:58:41 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 28, 2018, 09:44:35 AM
Quote from: kalvado on December 28, 2018, 09:27:36 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 28, 2018, 09:17:13 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on December 27, 2018, 12:14:04 PM
I see a whole lot of people commenting here who weren't alive during the 1970s, back when the next ice age was being predicted based on climate trends.
And how much stuff has Al Gore been wrong about? Lots.
A century from now, people are going to be asking why so many people way back then were worked up over this issue as they continue to happily live their lives.
Wow.
I believe the scientists, not crackpots.
Whether you believe scientists, politicians, priests - your right to do so is protected by the First Amendment.
Freedom of expression does not remove the consequences of exercising that right.
Yep, so when people are repeating something they read (which was already misinterpreted by a journalist) - I feel like they preach science. Or what they think science is.
Good. So only go to the direct sources and dismiss the rest.
Quote from: Rothman on December 28, 2018, 10:04:48 AMGood. So only go to the direct sources and dismiss the rest.
Believe it or not, but that is what I usually do for technical questions. And there is often a thick layer of details omitted in second-hand stories.
Quote from: Rothman on December 28, 2018, 09:18:45 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 27, 2018, 12:44:51 PM
My parents house fronts on waters that are at sea level and directly connect to the oceans, a Chesapeake Bay estuary. In 40 years there has been no noticeable change in sea level on their dock or any other dock or seawall in the vicinity. Tides go up and down twice a day, but the median has not changed.
NOAA says differently.
NOAA is a politicized and compromised entity. There are cites all over the world like mine, that puts to lie the "the seas are rising!!!" claims.
Quote from: kalvado on December 28, 2018, 09:27:36 AM
Whether you believe scientists, politicians, priests - your right to do so is protected by the First Amendment.
Let's not too hard on priests! Perhaps you could substitute "alchemists" or "occultists".
Ah yes, everyone knows there's mountains of evidence that sky-daddy exists.
Quote from: Beltway on December 28, 2018, 10:41:24 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 28, 2018, 09:18:45 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 27, 2018, 12:44:51 PM
My parents house fronts on waters that are at sea level and directly connect to the oceans, a Chesapeake Bay estuary. In 40 years there has been no noticeable change in sea level on their dock or any other dock or seawall in the vicinity. Tides go up and down twice a day, but the median has not changed.
NOAA says differently.
NOAA is a politicized and compromised entity. There are cites all over the world like mine, that puts to lie the "the seas are rising!!!" claims.
Sea level is rising; but it is on the order of 6 inches in a past 100 years - and seemingly at least part of that rise was there before aggressive fuel burn started. And it is fairly small compared to 400' rise since the peak of the ice age (talking about Doggerland). I am not sure 6" would have any significant effect if beachfront construction didn't become much more aggressive, though. When a high tide on a calm day floods streets in Miami, I really struggle to understand how the hell those building permits were issued to begin with..
Quote from: kalvado on December 28, 2018, 10:55:16 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 28, 2018, 10:41:24 AM
Quote from: Rothman on December 28, 2018, 09:18:45 AM
Quote from: Beltway on December 27, 2018, 12:44:51 PM
My parents house fronts on waters that are at sea level and directly connect to the oceans, a Chesapeake Bay estuary. In 40 years there has been no noticeable change in sea level on their dock or any other dock or seawall in the vicinity. Tides go up and down twice a day, but the median has not changed.
NOAA says differently.
NOAA is a politicized and compromised entity. There are cites all over the world like mine, that puts to lie the "the seas are rising!!!" claims.
Sea level is rising; but it is on the order of 6 inches in a past 100 years - and seemingly at least part of that rise was there before aggressive fuel burn started. And it is fairly small compared to 400' rise since the peak of the ice age (talking about Doggerland). I am not sure 6" would have any significant effect if beachfront construction didn't become much more aggressive, though. When a high tide on a calm day floods streets in Miami, I really struggle to understand how the hell those building permits were issued to begin with..
40 years is not 100 years, granted. But the low topography in many tidal shoreline areas is such that 6 inches rise would cause a very noticeable loss of real estate.
I also have not seen any change in nautical charts on the vertical navigational clearance of bridges; the NOAA produces them, and if say a 20-foot clearance in 1950 had decreased to 19 or 18 feet that would be a big deal to boaters who don't want to be crashing into the bridge or having their mast torn off.
Climate change is real, and this thread has gone crazy.