AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Is Natural Gas an Unreasonably Dangerous Energy Source?  (Read 1225 times)

csw

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 494
  • Age: 22
  • Location: Virginia
  • Last Login: June 26, 2019, 07:06:45 PM
Re: Is Natural Gas an Unreasonably Dangerous Energy Source?
« Reply #25 on: December 26, 2018, 09:02:47 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.

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4825
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: June 26, 2019, 11:30:13 PM
Re: Is Natural Gas an Unreasonably Dangerous Energy Source?
« Reply #26 on: December 26, 2018, 09:04:45 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
Logged
Scott M. Kozel
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4825
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: June 26, 2019, 11:30:13 PM
Re: Is Natural Gas an Unreasonably Dangerous Energy Source?
« Reply #27 on: December 26, 2018, 09:08:47 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.
Logged
Scott M. Kozel
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

kalvado

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2782
  • Location: upstate NY
  • Last Login: June 26, 2019, 08:19:20 PM
Re: Is Natural Gas an Unreasonably Dangerous Energy Source?
« Reply #28 on: December 26, 2018, 09:10:38 PM »

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.
Do you know what "falsifiable" means in this context?
Logged

webny99

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2709
  • Roadgeek Forever.

  • Age: 19
  • Location: Rochester, NY
  • Last Login: June 26, 2019, 04:14:03 PM
Re: Is Natural Gas an Unreasonably Dangerous Energy Source?
« Reply #29 on: December 26, 2018, 09:58:46 PM »

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!
Logged
Left Lane is For Passing, Not Camping!
Threads Started
Counties Clinched

csw

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 494
  • Age: 22
  • Location: Virginia
  • Last Login: June 26, 2019, 07:06:45 PM
Re: Is Natural Gas an Unreasonably Dangerous Energy Source?
« Reply #30 on: December 26, 2018, 10:07:01 PM »

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.
- 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.

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4825
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: June 26, 2019, 11:30:13 PM
Re: Is Natural Gas an Unreasonably Dangerous Energy Source?
« Reply #31 on: December 26, 2018, 10:28:46 PM »

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.
Logged
Scott M. Kozel
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

adventurernumber1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1575
  • David Carson

  • Age: 19
  • Location: Dalton, Georgia, USA
  • Last Login: June 25, 2019, 11:30:54 PM
Re: Is Natural Gas an Unreasonably Dangerous Energy Source?
« Reply #32 on: December 26, 2018, 10:49:48 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.
Logged
Alternating between different highway shields for my avatar - my previous highway shield avatar for the last few years was US 76.

Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/127322363@N08/

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-vJ3qa8R-cc44Cv6ohio1g

csw

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 494
  • Age: 22
  • Location: Virginia
  • Last Login: June 26, 2019, 07:06:45 PM
Re: Is Natural Gas an Unreasonably Dangerous Energy Source?
« Reply #33 on: December 26, 2018, 10:50:43 PM »

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.

oscar

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 6400
  • Age: 63
  • Location: Arlington, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 12:04:25 AM
    • my Hot Springs and Highways pages
Re: Is Natural Gas an Unreasonably Dangerous Energy Source?
« Reply #34 on: December 26, 2018, 10:53:16 PM »

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.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2018, 11:03:37 PM by oscar »
Logged
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

noelbotevera

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2940
  • Now at a Redbox kiosk near you!

  • Age: 15
  • Location: Chambersburg, Pennsylvania
  • Last Login: June 26, 2019, 11:43:58 PM
Re: Is Natural Gas an Unreasonably Dangerous Energy Source?
« Reply #35 on: December 26, 2018, 11:38:27 PM »

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.
Logged
Doing things that nobody wants to do since 2004.
I was THE youngest forum member from May 14th, 2015 to September 25th, 2016.

I am the second Alex, since I currently use my father's name...

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4825
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: June 26, 2019, 11:30:13 PM
Re: Is Natural Gas an Unreasonably Dangerous Energy Source?
« Reply #36 on: December 26, 2018, 11:45:50 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.
Logged
Scott M. Kozel
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

adventurernumber1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1575
  • David Carson

  • Age: 19
  • Location: Dalton, Georgia, USA
  • Last Login: June 25, 2019, 11:30:54 PM
Re: Is Natural Gas an Unreasonably Dangerous Energy Source?
« Reply #37 on: December 27, 2018, 12:03:27 AM »


... 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.
Logged
Alternating between different highway shields for my avatar - my previous highway shield avatar for the last few years was US 76.

Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/127322363@N08/

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-vJ3qa8R-cc44Cv6ohio1g

kalvado

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2782
  • Location: upstate NY
  • Last Login: June 26, 2019, 08:19:20 PM
Re: Is Natural Gas an Unreasonably Dangerous Energy Source?
« Reply #38 on: December 27, 2018, 06:58:25 AM »

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.
Logged

webny99

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2709
  • Roadgeek Forever.

  • Age: 19
  • Location: Rochester, NY
  • Last Login: June 26, 2019, 04:14:03 PM
Re: Is Natural Gas an Unreasonably Dangerous Energy Source?
« Reply #39 on: December 27, 2018, 09:00:11 AM »

... 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:

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
Logged
Left Lane is For Passing, Not Camping!
Threads Started
Counties Clinched

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4825
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: June 26, 2019, 11:30:13 PM
Re: Is Natural Gas an Unreasonably Dangerous Energy Source?
« Reply #40 on: December 27, 2018, 09:11:21 AM »

... 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:
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.
Logged
Scott M. Kozel
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

webny99

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2709
  • Roadgeek Forever.

  • Age: 19
  • Location: Rochester, NY
  • Last Login: June 26, 2019, 04:14:03 PM
Re: Is Natural Gas an Unreasonably Dangerous Energy Source?
« Reply #41 on: December 27, 2018, 09:24:27 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:
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.
Logged
Left Lane is For Passing, Not Camping!
Threads Started
Counties Clinched

1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6898
  • UMass Lowell student

  • Age: 20
  • Location: MA/NH border
  • Last Login: June 26, 2019, 09:55:32 PM
    • Flickr account
Re: Is Natural Gas an Unreasonably Dangerous Energy Source?
« Reply #42 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.
Logged
Clinched, plus NH 111A (central)

Traveled, plus:
US ⒉⒔50
MA ⒐2⒉40.9⒐10⒎10⒐1⒒1⒚12⒎14⒈159
NH 27,111A(central,eastern),128; NY 366; GA 42,140; FL A1A; CT 32

kalvado

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2782
  • Location: upstate NY
  • Last Login: June 26, 2019, 08:19:20 PM
Re: Is Natural Gas an Unreasonably Dangerous Energy Source?
« Reply #43 on: December 27, 2018, 09:47:39 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.
Logged

MikieTimT

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 245
  • Age: 46
  • Location: Wedington Woods, Arkansas
  • Last Login: June 26, 2019, 11:33:40 PM
Re: Is Natural Gas an Unreasonably Dangerous Energy Source?
« Reply #44 on: December 27, 2018, 10:23:14 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:
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.
Logged

adventurernumber1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1575
  • David Carson

  • Age: 19
  • Location: Dalton, Georgia, USA
  • Last Login: June 25, 2019, 11:30:54 PM
Re: Is Natural Gas an Unreasonably Dangerous Energy Source?
« Reply #45 on: December 27, 2018, 12:05:25 PM »

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.
Logged
Alternating between different highway shields for my avatar - my previous highway shield avatar for the last few years was US 76.

Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/127322363@N08/

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-vJ3qa8R-cc44Cv6ohio1g

hbelkins

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13200
  • It is well, it is well, with my soul.

  • Age: 57
  • Location: Kentucky
  • Last Login: June 26, 2019, 12:26:20 PM
    • Millennium Highway
Re: Is Natural Gas an Unreasonably Dangerous Energy Source?
« Reply #46 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.
Logged

jeffandnicole

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9848
  • Age: 44
  • Location: South Jersey
  • Last Login: June 26, 2019, 10:25:27 PM
Re: Is Natural Gas an Unreasonably Dangerous Energy Source?
« Reply #47 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.
Logged

Beltway

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4825
  • Roads to the Future

  • Location: Richmond, VA
  • Last Login: June 26, 2019, 11:30:13 PM
Re: Is Natural Gas an Unreasonably Dangerous Energy Source?
« Reply #48 on: December 27, 2018, 12:44:51 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.
Logged
Scott M. Kozel
-- Baloney is a reserved word on the Internet
    (Robert Coté, 2002)

http://www.roadstothefuture.com
http://www.capital-beltway.com

kalvado

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2782
  • Location: upstate NY
  • Last Login: June 26, 2019, 08:19:20 PM
Re: Is Natural Gas an Unreasonably Dangerous Energy Source?
« Reply #49 on: December 27, 2018, 12:58:52 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.
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.