Ice Story CBS Boston

[John Mercier]

It isn't that humans are doing all of it... just we are speeding it up.

The politics are simply we tax the things we don't want, and subsidize the things we do want.

The mini-splits and electric vehicles allow us to use grid capacity that we have to pay for but goes unused. The support for high efficiency wood and pellet stoves allow us to short-cycle the carbon. Our push for better windows and building envelopes allow us to actually conserve energy.

I once saw someone suggest that NH use more nuclear. Only one problem. Most of NH's electric generation is nuclear... a second reactor at Seabrook would require a transmission upgrade - something unlikely to happen after the reaction to the Northern Pass... and the only other location with the existing transmission infrastructure is the only coal plant currently in NH.
Arguing to shut the coal plant permanently would create a political storm not worth the effort.

[Major]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

It isn't that humans are doing all of it... just we are speeding it up.

I guess this is where we disagree. We have 150 years of data. How do you or anyone else know we are speeding it up. Yes, I've heard scientist say this and that, but the statistician in me knows that it is irresponsible to draw conclusions from such an incredibly small sample. I also heard what experts said about the virus and we all know how that turned out.

We know climate change exists because of what JayR noted. You are correct, we tax things we don't want and we subsidize things we do want. How has that worked so far? Car dealerships have lots of EVs that nobody wants. The wind and solar industries are a scam, spending billions (maybe trillions) of dollars with no meaningful impact on our energy supply. But, we vote in politicians who supposedly represent the will of the people. I guess we want high energy costs.

That said, it seems that the winters are milder than when I was a kid.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by Major

I guess this is where we disagree. We have 150 years of data. How do you or anyone else know we are speeding it up. Yes, I've heard scientist say this and that, but the statistician in me knows that it is irresponsible to draw conclusions from such an incredibly small sample. I also heard what experts said about the virus and we all know how that turned out.

We know climate change exists because of what JayR noted. You are correct, we tax things we don't want and we subsidize things we do want. How has that worked so far? Car dealerships have lots of EVs that nobody wants. The wind and solar industries are a scam, spending billions (maybe trillions) of dollars with no meaningful impact on our energy supply. But, we vote in politicians who supposedly represent the will of the people. I guess we want high energy costs.

That said, it seems that the winters are milder than when I was a kid.

They are milder Keith! I compare humans to incandescent light bulbs. When I was in grade school in the early 70s (i'm 59) the world population was approx 4B, it is now north of 8B. If I turn on 8 100W bulbs in a room, the temperature will rise more in that room than had I turned on 4. We have a population problem in our greenhouse.

[Major]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

They are milder Keith! I compare humans to incandescent light bulbs. When I was in grade school in the early 70s (i'm 59) the world population was approx 4B, it is now north of 8B. If I turn on 8 100W bulbs in a room, the temperature will rise more in that room than had I turned on 4. We have a population problem in our greenhouse.

I love the analogy. The earth has a surface area of 197 million square miles, with land taking up 57 million square miles. It is hard to determine whether doubling, tripling, quadrupling, etc. would effect temperature. When we were kids, the experts were predicting global cooling. For all we know a solar flare or sun spot has made it warmer.

I am for conservation. However, we must balance that with the fact that cheap energy has brought more people out of poverty than almost anything else.

I hope you are well, John! Merry Christmas to you and your family!

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Major

I love the analogy. The earth has a surface area of 197 million square miles, with land taking up 57 million square miles. It is hard to determine whether doubling, tripling, quadrupling, etc. would effect temperature. When we were kids, the experts were predicting global cooling. For all we know a solar flare or sun spot has made it warmer.

I am for conservation. However, we must balance that with the fact that cheap energy has brought more people out of poverty than almost anything else.

I hope you are well, John! Merry Christmas to you and your family!

I guess you didn't pay as close attention in school as you thought you did.
Sulfur dioxide is an atmospheric coolant.
Scientists were looking for the reason for the cooling luckily it turned out not to be natural.

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by Major

I guess this is where we disagree. We have 150 years of data. How do you or anyone else know we are speeding it up. Yes, I've heard scientist say this and that, but the statistician in me knows that it is irresponsible to draw conclusions from such an incredibly small sample. I also heard what experts said about the virus and we all know how that turned out.

We know climate change exists because of what JayR noted. You are correct, we tax things we don't want and we subsidize things we do want. How has that worked so far? Car dealerships have lots of EVs that nobody wants. The wind and solar industries are a scam, spending billions (maybe trillions) of dollars with no meaningful impact on our energy supply. But, we vote in politicians who supposedly represent the will of the people. I guess we want high energy costs.

That said, it seems that the winters are milder than when I was a kid.

The problem is we expect quick results today, like looking for info on the internet. Climate change has happened over millions of years but people expect to see the results of slowing that down right away, it just doesn't happen that way.
Like I said, I don't know the answer, but I do know the results of doing is nothing.
On the plus side, a longer boating season would be nice!

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Major

I guess this is where we disagree. We have 150 years of data. How do you or anyone else know we are speeding it up. Yes, I've heard scientist say this and that, but the statistician in me knows that it is irresponsible to draw conclusions from such an incredibly small sample. I also heard what experts said about the virus and we all know how that turned out.

We know climate change exists because of what JayR noted. You are correct, we tax things we don't want and we subsidize things we do want. How has that worked so far? Car dealerships have lots of EVs that nobody wants. The wind and solar industries are a scam, spending billions (maybe trillions) of dollars with no meaningful impact on our energy supply. But, we vote in politicians who supposedly represent the will of the people. I guess we want high energy costs.

That said, it seems that the winters are milder than when I was a kid.

I am pretty sure that my commonsense tells me that if I burn something, I add heat to the atmosphere that would not be there had I not burnt something.

Pretty sure that my blacktop driveway is warmer than my clover field, and that field is warmer than my forested parcel.

Solar is about personal freedom from the corporate utilities... you may want to complain to the Free State Project.

I am sure the car companies can take care of themselves... and someone paying less income tax... well, I don't see that as a bad thing... even if I don't personally use that deduction.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

It isn't that humans are doing all of it... just we are speeding it up.

The politics are simply we tax the things we don't want, and subsidize the things we do want.

The mini-splits and electric vehicles allow us to use grid capacity that we have to pay for but goes unused. The support for high efficiency wood and pellet stoves allow us to short-cycle the carbon. Our push for better windows and building envelopes allow us to actually conserve energy.

I once saw someone suggest that NH use more nuclear. Only one problem. Most of NH's electric generation is nuclear... a second reactor at Seabrook would require a transmission upgrade - something unlikely to happen after the reaction to the Northern Pass... and the only other location with the existing transmission infrastructure is the only coal plant currently in NH.
Arguing to shut the coal plant permanently would create a political storm not worth the effort.

Seabrook's reactor is approx 1200 MW/h so it can support close to a million homes. Transmission lines would be needed if they had built Seabrook Unit 2 as originally planned.

Nuclear is a solid, carbon free power source so we need to have it as part of our US energy strategy at least for the short-term. It is very difficult to bring new units online in the US. Vogtle brought their first Westinghouse AP1000 on line in GA a year or so ago. It can be done but it is pricy!

https://www.georgiapower.com/company/plant-vogtle.html

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by VitaBene

Seabrook's reactor is approx 1200 MW/h so it can support close to a million homes. Transmission lines would be needed if they had built Seabrook Unit 2 as originally planned.

Nuclear is a solid, carbon free power source so we need to have it as part of our US energy strategy at least for the short-term. It is very difficult to bring new units online in the US. Vogtle brought their first Westinghouse AP1000 on line in GA a year or so ago. It can be done but it is pricy!

https://www.georgiapower.com/company/plant-vogtle.html

We can't expect that the residents of Seabrook and the surrounding area, fairly densely populated, would put up with the new build out since we allowed the residents of sparsely populated Coos and Grafton county to not have to deal with the transmission lines.

So it really isn't about the price... it is about the NIMBY politics.

Since we have to deal with the current infrastructure and only small changes (don't even try to trim a tree near the lines)... the strategy is to use the current infrastructure more efficiently.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

We can't expect that the residents of Seabrook and the surrounding area, fairly densely populated, would put up with the new build out since we allowed the residents of sparsely populated Coos and Grafton county to not have to deal with the transmission lines.

So it really isn't about the price... it is about the NIMBY politics.

Since we have to deal with the current infrastructure and only small changes (don't even try to trim a tree near the lines)... the strategy is to use the current infrastructure more efficiently.

I agree with the NIMBY politics. What happened to Seabrook 2? That would surely shut down the Bow plant but no! NIMBY! There was a plan to convert Bow from coal to NG, but no! No transmission pipes! NIMBY! Plus, the hydroelectric energy from Canada to replace the fossil burners! No! NIMBY!

If we want to put a dent in pollution, we should concentrate on the Big Three polluters who have no intent on clean energy, India, Nigeria, and the ocean commercial cargo barges which burn the dirtiest oil.

[John Mercier]

There were cost overruns building the first reactor, so the second... I believe... is available to be finished off and activated should the first be shuttered.

The transmission infrastructure can handle the output generated one at a time.

But since we are no longer building transmission, the second would not even be considered until the first was in the process of being decommissioned, and then the owner of record at that time would consider the financials of outfitting number two and placing it into operation.

Number One had to be subsidized because the cost of NG generation was so low and the thermal efficiency was so high.

We also have some smaller generation sites left over due to the decision not to expand the subsidies to biomass generation. Biomass, unfortunately, directly competes with the concept of wood and pellet stove fuel; the government chose to subsidize those instead of burning the biomass for electricity. The State subsidizing one format (electric generation) and the federal government subsidizing the other (Inflation Reduction Act) was an incoherent strategy.

But we are not going to stop India, or even ourselves... it is really more a matter of adapting to the change.
The change being exponential rather than arithmetic is a challenge, but it is a challenge we don't get a choice to avoid.

[rsmlp]

I wouldn't want to own a ski resort...at least on margin!

[John Mercier]

Almost all of them can make snow...

The data isn't that it doesn't fall below freezing ever.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

It isn't that humans are doing all of it... just we are speeding it up. The politics are simply we tax the things we don't want, and subsidize the things we do want.

The mini-splits and electric vehicles allow us to use grid capacity that we have to pay for but goes unused. The support for high efficiency wood and pellet stoves allow us to short-cycle the carbon. Our push for better windows and building envelopes allow us to actually conserve energy. I once saw someone suggest that NH use more nuclear. Only one problem. Most of NH's electric generation is nuclear... a second reactor at Seabrook would require a transmission upgrade - something unlikely to happen after the reaction to the Northern Pass... and the only other location with the existing transmission infrastructure is the only coal plant currently in NH. Arguing to shut the coal plant permanently would create a political storm not worth the effort.

Not unlike other energy sources, nuclear energy produces heat. That's why nuclear must have cooling systems. (Towers or canals).

In the "sawtooth" graphs recording Earth's temperatures, wide swings are noted. It appears Earth is headed towards future Ice Ages, but presently, we're in a warming stage. (Just as several "blips" of warming has been recorded since 1300 AD ).

Of course, worldwide volcanic activity can disrupt predictions either way, but this graph demonstrates when there are a greater number of eruptions, it forces future temperatures downwards.

https://iceageearth.blogspot.com/201...by-damion.html

BTW:

Actor Michael Ansara, who played Cochise, was Lebanese!

[root1]

With regards to pollution control, until India & China hop on the 'stop pollution' bandwagon, any mitigation on our (USA) part is just a fart in the wind.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by root1

With regards to pollution control, until India & China hop on the 'stop pollution' bandwagon, any mitigation on our (USA) part is just a fart in the wind.

True. But as I state above. I don't think the policies are really about reducing anything.

Politics in NH from the Forest Society and Timberland Owners gave us subsidized biomass. They are also strongly involved in blocking new/upgraded transmission lines - block out the competition.

So a new tax rebate credit for burning wood makes them happy... and for most of NH doesn't really make anyone sad. We close one door, but open another. I know they would rather have both... but that doesn't seem to be beneficial to the majority of residents.

The loss of lake ice, or snow cover, may be an issue for some areas... with some user groups... but they will need to adapt.

Maybe some street hockey rather than pond hockey, bob houses on pontoon boats, dog sleds using the summer training wheeled rigs, and fat bikes instead of snowmobiles?

But thinking that everyone is going to sport an EV - with the ice storm blackouts we've had - I think that may be a dream too far in a short period of just years.

Now to be honest... I don't know that I wouldn't buy a plug-in hybrid if the cost with the tax credit worked out. Just don't know what might happen if for so many short trips the gasoline went bad in the tank.

Of course an eight speed or high-efficiency CVT wouldn't be out of the question either.

[garysanfran]

The Earth wobbles about 4 degrees every 26,000 years or so. Parts of the Sahara desert were once under the ocean as were parts of Wyoming and Montana. Although we should all want a clean planet, not much we can do about that wobble.

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by garysanfran

The Earth wobbles about 4 degrees every 26,000 years or so. Parts of the Sahara desert were once under the ocean as were parts of Wyoming and Montana. Although we should all want a clean planet, not much we can do about that wobble.

I thought I felt a little dizzy.

[John Mercier]

Orbital forcing.
I believe that is the basis for the math used in the climate models to see natural variation and predict prehistoric conditions.

Not sure they can help me win this year's Ice Out contest.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by ApS

Not unlike other energy sources, nuclear energy produces heat. That's why nuclear must have cooling systems. (Towers or canals).

In the "sawtooth" graphs recording Earth's temperatures, wide swings are noted. It appears Earth is headed towards future Ice Ages, but presently, we're in a warming stage. (Just as several "blips" of warming has been recorded since 1300 AD ).

Of course, worldwide volcanic activity can disrupt predictions either way, but this graph demonstrates when there are a greater number of eruptions, it forces future temperatures downwards.

https://iceageearth.blogspot.com/201...by-damion.html

BTW:

Actor Michael Ansara, who played Cochise, was Lebanese!

What instruments were the native in North America using in the 1300 to measure the temperature, how often did they measure them, and were did they record them?

Emerson is talking about a physical observation that has occurred over the last 50 years.
My input, as quoted, was that what appear to be ''green'' policies are really more about other factors. The promotion of small scale generation is due to the limitations on the existing infrastructure. We aren't going to get new/upgraded transmission of either electricity or natural gas... so we have to make do.