Winter 2020 New England Banter and General Obs

[OceanStWx]

6 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

I work from home 3-4 days a week...eat that car emissions.

I ain’t gonna feel one damned ounce of guilt if I fly for a vacation any time soon. 

I really feel like it popped up this past year or two out of nowhere really. Are emissions from flying important, yeah 10% is a pretty large number on the transportation pie.

But it really felt more like an effort to curb climate scientists from attending conferences and traveling for research than actually trying to limit emissions. Faux outrage in my opinion.

[Ginx snewx]

17 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

This is the perfect straw man argument Steve. People will make money off making solar panels and wind turbines? Then we can't transition to those energy sources. Fossil fuels companies make more money than they know what to do with, yet the same complaints about money in that industry don't apply.

You flight shaming me for taking a vacation is another good one. Individuals taking vacations are not contributing to carbon emissions. The New Yorker that travels every week for work to SFO does. Shaming people into taking small individual actions is a great way for the largest emitting industries to shirk responsibility. Domestically we're talking about 10% of transportation emissions from flying. Non trivial, but whistling past the graveyard when it comes to car/truck travel (especially when the current administration is trying to reduce regulation on car emissions/fuel efficiency - which by the way will not save anyone any money in the long run except for car companies). Do plastic straws contribute to pollution of our waterways? You betcha. My wife and I use metal straws to do our part, but we don't shame anyone if they choose not to. Because in the end straws are a fraction of the plastic pollution out there, but it is a convenient smokescreen to mask the larger contributors. 

And good luck with China? Yeah, good luck if we aren't the shining city on a hill to point towards when it comes to clean energy policy. 

Alaska being cold one winter out of a decade is not really a newsy story. Nor are the Dakotas being cold in winter. The magnitude is, and it has been covered, as I pointed out. Dismissing coverage of warmth as agenda is disingenuous at best. This is a topic I care a lot about. I do my research and stay up to date on it, I make my individual actions, and I vote primarily based on who has the best policy ideas to tackle the problem. I'm really not sure what moral high ground you are claiming to call others who believe/care about this lemmings.

Pollution is something we all can take part in. IDK about metal straws sipping Mai Tais in the Caribbean.  Who shamed you? I was generalizing.  Sorry you took it as a personal attack.  Vacation away man. IDC what anyone does just dont infringe your ideals on my ideals. You are free to think and feel as you like but so am I. I personally believe there is agenda that is magnifying and hyping. Oil companies of course are ruthless pigs, so are politicians on both sides. Once you come to understand the game you will realize how fruitless it is. It's been fixed since the dawn of time.

[Ginx snewx]

2 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

The 8.5 and the 2.6 are extreme goalposts scenarios so they are pretty useful in a statistical sense.

But nobody should ever lead a headline with them when discussing new published literature IMHO. That’s kind of like leading a headline before a run-of-the-mill big snowstorm (say 8-14 inches) and claiming “this storm could drop 30 inches!!” because one ensemble member showed it...pure clickbait hype headline and probably will scare the shit out of a bunch of people unnecessarily. 

And from an advocacy standpoint, that kind of hype probably does more long-term damage to the credibility of the science and mitigation efforts than saying nothing at all. It’s kind of why I wish that there was a better medium to educate the public on the scientific literature rather than using mainstream media who themselves tend to be pretty ignorant of the literature...but there really isn’t unfortunately. 

Here in lies the problem I was addressing.  You have expressed my thoughts much better than I. 

[OceanStWx]

1 minute ago, ORH_wxman said:

The 8.5 and the 2.6 are extreme goalposts scenarios so they are pretty useful in a statistical sense.

But nobody should ever lead a headline with them when discussing new published literature IMHO. That’s kind of like leading a headline before a run-of-the-mill big snowstorm (say 8-14 inches) and claiming “this storm could drop 30 inches!!” because one ensemble member showed it...pure clickbait hype headline and probably will scare the shit out of a bunch of people unnecessarily. 

And from an advocacy standpoint, that kind of hype probably does more long-term damage to the credibility of the science and mitigation efforts than saying nothing at all. It’s kind of why I wish that there was a better medium to educate the public on the scientific literature rather than using mainstream media who themselves tend to be pretty ignorant of the literature...but there really isn’t unfortunately. 

I think climate communication is probably better than it's ever been, the problem is there is a firehose of BS that spills out into the airwaves too. And the public is generally not very receptive to statements that we don't really know a lot about sensible impacts. We have the warming trends pegged pretty good, but we don't know how those feedback into every day weather well. That's a hard concept to grasp for many, and gives the sense that scientists don't know what they are talking about.

I also struggle with the flip side articles that blast use of RCP8.5 by arguing we'll eventually come up with a solution. Well that seems pretty pie in the sky too given the current state of affairs. I mean the latest budget has millions in it for research into geoengineering (spraying aerosols into the stratosphere to block insolation) and wait until the chemtrail crowd gets a hold of that!

[ORH_wxman]

4 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

I think climate communication is probably better than it's ever been, the problem is there is a firehose of BS that spills out into the airwaves too. And the public is generally not very receptive to statements that we don't really know a lot about sensible impacts. We have the warming trends pegged pretty good, but we don't know how those feedback into every day weather well. That's a hard concept to grasp for many, and gives the sense that scientists don't know what they are talking about.

I also struggle with the flip side articles that blast use of RCP8.5 by arguing we'll eventually come up with a solution. Well that seems pretty pie in the sky too given the current state of affairs. I mean the latest budget has millions in it for research into geoengineering (spraying aerosols into the stratosphere to block insolation) and wait until the chemtrail crowd gets a hold of that!

Yeah there’s is a wealth of disinformation and conspiracy crap that comes with the honest reporting too. Usually articles that blast RCP 8.5 have another agenda too...I think it’s fine to criticize RCP 8.5 as unrealistic but it’s not an excuse to go into other conspiracies or use it as evidence that some other anti-science claim should be believed. 

 

 

 

[Ginx snewx]

4 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said:

Yeah there’s is a wealth of disinformation and conspiracy crap that comes with the honest reporting too. Usually articles that blast RCP 8.5 have another agenda too...I think it’s fine to criticize RCP 8.5 as unrealistic but it’s not an excuse to go into other conspiracies or use it as evidence that some other anti-science claim should be believed. 

 

 

 

Problem is you can't be in the middle on anything,  if you are you get attacked as a denier or alarmist.  Possibly the biggest issue facing this country is the radicals get all the attention.  Either you are with us or you are not. Reality is most people have a moderate sensible take on things. But extremism gets the hype and that is squarely on the hands of all media. 

[OceanStWx]

3 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said:

Pollution is something we all can take part in. IDK about metal straws sipping Mai Tais in the Caribbean.  Who shamed you? I was generalizing.  Sorry you took it as a personal attack.  Vacation away man. IDC what anyone does just dont infringe your ideals on my ideals. You are free to think and feel as you like but so am I. I personally believe there is agenda that is magnifying and hyping. Oil companies of course are ruthless pigs, so are politicians on both sides. Once you come to understand the game you will realize how fruitless it is. It's been fixed since the dawn of time.

Spare me with the don't infringe on my ideals stuff. What you mean is don't infringe with anything you don't agree with. There's an agenda for business as usual too. I'm not sure what your point is. To do nothing because there might be people that are extreme about climate change? 

I'm sorry you cynically believe everyone is out to get you, but I choose to believe there are actually folks are trying to fix problems. I'll support the people, policies, and organizations that match the fixes I care about.

[OceanStWx]

2 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said:

Problem is you can't be in the middle on anything,  if you are you get attacked as a denier or alarmist.  Possibly the biggest issue facing this country is the radicals get all the attention.  Either you are with us or you are not. Reality is most people have a moderate sensible take on things. But extremism gets the hype and that is squarely on the hands of all media. 

Climate change isn't that issue though. You either believe we need policies to address it or you don't. There is no middle position. 

[Ginx snewx]

3 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

Spare me with the don't infringe on my ideals stuff. What you mean is don't infringe with anything you don't agree with. There's an agenda for business as usual too. I'm not sure what your point is. To do nothing because there might be people that are extreme about climate change? 

I'm sorry you cynically believe everyone is out to get you, but I choose to believe there are actually folks are trying to fix problems. I'll support the people, policies, and organizations that match the fixes I care about.

I don't give a crap what you do, what you say, who you support.  You do you. Its awesome you are proactive in supporting your beliefs, leave me alone to believe what I believe is a media driven agenda . I don't think anyone is out to get me.

[Ginx snewx]

Just now, OceanStWx said:

Climate change isn't that issue though. You either believe we need policies to address it or you don't. There is no middle position. 

So what's the answer? Let's hear them and what will be the results of your solution and are you sure your solutions will be the answer . Who will be negatively effected by your solutions? 

[Damage In Tolland]

Fight fight fight 

[Ginx snewx]

Just now, Damage In Tolland said:

Fight fight fight 

It's ok to talk things out, it really is 

[CoastalWx]

5 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said:

So what's the answer? Let's hear them and what will be the results of your solution and are you sure your solutions will be the answer . Who will be negatively effected by your solutions? 

So are you saying we shouldn’t have any policies to help combat rising emissions? Sitting and not doing anything is the worst possible thing we can do. You can debate how far to take it, but we need to invoke some policy here. 

[OSUmetstud]

Just now, CoastalWx said:

So are you saying we shouldn’t have any policies to help combat rising emissions? Sitting and not doing anything is the worst possible thing we can do. You can debate how far to take it, but we need to invoke some policy here. 

"Moderate" 

[Damage In Tolland]

3 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said:

It's ok to talk things out, it really is 

I want punches thrown and hair pulled 

[OceanStWx]

Just now, Damage In Tolland said:

I want punches thrown and hair pulled 

Kev I don't have any hair

[Cold Miser]

1 hour ago, NorEastermass128 said:

Again, what’s the harm in getting off fossil fuels?  Maybe it’s a marketing deficiency. Instead of marketing it as a CC remedy, maybe we should market it as energy independence. What’s more patriotic than independence?

12z GFS better show a bomb lol

It is not the “harm “in getting off of fossil fuels, it is the logistics, the costs, and the threat to our fossil fueled economy that right now makes such a move almost impossible. Everything and I mean everything you do has fossil fuels/petroleum based production/ materials attached to it … From the shower you take, to the food you eat, to the lifesaving medicine that people take.  Every one of us is using petroleum based product to type on this forum.  When you go home and binge watch endless tv shows there is fossil fuels behind all of it.  Without petroleum we would not be able to produce the amount of food we produce, and yes, for you vegetarians or vegan types that want to see this food consumed in mass quantities, that means you too.  Do a search on the simple activity of performing a Google search and how much energy that seemingly innocuous activity is.  You will be surprised.  

We are addicted to fossil fuels, and this addiction will be hard to quit.  Sweet crude is where it is at, and once we go over the peak oil crest and start rolling down the slippery slope to where the oil is tougher and tougher to extract not much will be there to save us.  Tar sands will not save us, clean coal will not save us, hydro power and natural gas will not save us, and  solar and wind will not save us.  All of the ‘efficient”, cleaner ways of producing energy still require some type of fossil fuel to actually produce the machinery and products.  What do people think solar panels are made of?  We are only prolonging the inevitable demise of our way of living.  Technology won’t save us.  The planet is finite, and we only have one shot here. 

Many people are just plain irresponsible and don’t give a sh*t about what goes on beyond their inner circle.  As long as Karen can leave her 3,500 sf house, drive herself to Starbucks, then to work in her 8 seat SUV, leave work, pick up her sons Brad, and Chad Jr. at soccer practice, come home and have her Hello Fresh, prepackaged meal heated up for her kids and her husband Chad Sr  …Then go into the living room and watch America’s Got Talent on the 80” tv, without any guilt or fear of consequences  then this routine will continue until her and millions of others are forced to change their ways.  By then it may be too late.  Freedom has a price.  We know the price, but would rather put off paying it until later, or hope that the fee goes away, and we won’t have to pay.

On the one end of the spectrum we may eventually see a huge die off of people, with the rest of us living in a scaled back environment, almost pre-industrial age, with the possibility of the rich (in gold, and silver) hanging on a bit longer to their throw caution to wind life of extravagance (at the expense of the less fortunate).  On the other end massive war, natural disaster may put an end to most of us anyway.

But, I think all of this comes much later rather than sooner, so anything we can do to slow down the fall of man will help.  This will include some of the more energy conscious ways of production, still using fossil fuels, but in conjunction with solar, and wind, etc.

Enjoy the rest of your day!

[CoastalWx]

Just now, OSUmetstud said:

"Moderate" 

If he is saying acting in a moderate fashion that’s fine. At least it’s taking action. But if he’s saying he’s moderate in the way of just sitting there and not doing anything because earlier predictions never materialized....woof. 

[OceanStWx]

13 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said:

I don't give a crap what you do, what you say, who you support.  You do you. Its awesome you are proactive in supporting your beliefs, leave me alone to believe what I believe is a media driven agenda . I don't think anyone is out to get me.

I find that a weird way to live. The media are there to report on goings on. So if there were no media the information would never reach the vast majority of people. Saying agenda is media driven is a talking point to discredit what the media are reporting on. But you do you.

[Ginx snewx]

Just now, CoastalWx said:

If he is saying acting in a moderate fashion that’s fine. At least it’s taking action. But if he’s saying he’s moderate in the way of just sitting there and not doing anything because earlier predictions never materialized....woof. 

See this is exactly what I mean.moderate meaning taking action that is not based on hype but rather takes into account all ramifications of action. Solar power is great until you have to dispose of the panels. Alternative energy like Nuclear is great until it's not. There is no free lunch. Garth said it very well.

[Ginx snewx]

2 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

I find that a weird way to live. The media are there to report on goings on. So if there were no media the information would never reach the vast majority of people. Saying agenda is media driven is a talking point to discredit what the media are reporting on. But you do you.

I do thanks.

[CoastalWx]

Just now, Ginx snewx said:

See this is exactly what I mean.moderate meaning taking action that is not based on hype but rather takes into account all ramifications of action. Solar power is great until you have to dispose of the panels. Alternative energy like Nuclear is great until it's not. There is no free lunch. Garth said it very well.

But your energy footprint if you will, is greatly reduced by the energy created with those panels. Not to mention they are getting more and more efficient.

[OceanStWx]

1 minute ago, Cold Miser said:

It is not the “harm “in getting off of fossil fuels, it is the logistics, the costs, and the threat to our fossil fueled economy that right now makes such a move almost impossible.

I think the shift in thinking will come when the costs outweigh the benefits. Right now most people don't think of disaster relief as a cost. But we pay for it, and the costs are going up, and climate change can measurably increase damage from weather events. We're going to pay one way or another. I personally would rather pay for mitigation/adaption rather than rebuilding.

[Ginx snewx]

Just now, OceanStWx said:

I think the shift in thinking will come when the costs outweigh the benefits. Right now most people don't think of disaster relief as a cost. But we pay for it, and the costs are going up, and climate change can measurably increase damage from weather events. We're going to pay one way or another. I personally would rather pay for mitigation/adaption rather than rebuilding.

So what's your plan? I mean it's fine to be an idealist but what exactly are you proposing . I seem to have seen that climate related deaths are way down and if course costs are up when we build on barrier beaches. We are pretty dumb

[CoastalWx]

2 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

I think the shift in thinking will come when the costs outweigh the benefits. Right now most people don't think of disaster relief as a cost. But we pay for it, and the costs are going up, and climate change can measurably increase damage from weather events. We're going to pay one way or another. I personally would rather pay for mitigation/adaption rather than rebuilding.

Yep. We subsidize. 

[OceanStWx]

2 minutes ago, Ginx snewx said:

See this is exactly what I mean.moderate meaning taking action that is not based on hype but rather takes into account all ramifications of action. Solar power is great until you have to dispose of the panels. Alternative energy like Nuclear is great until it's not. There is no free lunch. Garth said it very well.

Straw man again. Like fossil fuels don't have awful byproducts. It's not just emissions, it's toxic waste that goes into groundwater. Fracking pollution is terrible for surrounding communities. I think the benefits of solar energy far outweigh the costs of disposal. 

[ORH_wxman]

Honestly we’re not that far off from green energy becoming significantly cheaper than fossil fuels. If you read the advances even in the last 5-10 years then you’ll see how it is accelerating. It could probably use a kick in the pants with some more R&D funding, but even without that it’s probably a decade or two away from really changing our energy grid. 

Aviation is a long ways off from losing fossil fuels due to energy density issues in flying something that heavy (we just don’t have the energy density available that matches jet fuel)....but for cars and the electric grid the change is probably going to be pretty quick. 

[Ginx snewx]

6 minutes ago, CoastalWx said:

But your energy footprint if you will, is greatly reduced by the energy created with those panels. Not to mention they are getting more and more efficient.

You aware of the strip mining of forests in New England to put up solar panels? The carbon those trees absorb....

[Damage In Tolland]

12 minutes ago, OceanStWx said:

Kev I don't have any hair

Ginx has long curly hair 

[Ginx snewx]

Just now, ORH_wxman said:

Honestly we’re not that far off from green energy becoming significantly cheaper than fossil fuels. If you read the advances even in the last 5-10 years then you’ll see how it is accelerating. It could probably use a kick in the pants with some more R&D funding, but even without that it’s probably a decade or two away from really changing our energy grid. 

Aviation is a long ways off from losing fossil fuels due to energy density issues in flying something that heavy (we just don’t have the energy density available that matches jet fuel)....but for cars and the electric grid the change is probably going to be pretty quick. 

What fuel produces the electricity?