header pic

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: Weather, Climate, and Environment

 (Read 59092 times)

MichiFan87

  • Player
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 796
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #154 on: January 10, 2018, 11:44:17 PM »
bwarbiany - Fair point and totally agreed, both in regards to the skepticism of the extent of human impact but it exists to a point.

I look at it more from an economic perspective, anyway. I work in the energy & sustainability space, and various energy efficiency, energy management, and renewable energy technologies are all very economic in most parts of the country. Everyone in the energy sector knew that the DOE proposal to subsidize coal and nuclear was all BS, and there is a similar consensus on the proposed tariffs against solar panels (it's telling enough that BP and Shell are reinvesting in solar), which came about from two already-failing solar companies, Sunniva and SolarWorld, for reasons of their own doing. Supposedly there's a good chance that the WTO would turn it down, anyway, and/or there's enough production from unaffected countries in SE Asia and domestically that it won't matter too much.
“When your team is winning, be ready to be tough, because winning can make you soft. On the other hand, when your team is losing, stick by them. Keep believing”
― Bo Schembechler

CousinFreddie

  • Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 861
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #155 on: January 11, 2018, 11:06:32 AM »
And I'm not sure that you can nearly make a statement as specific as emissions in the Northeast/Midwest are responsible for the change in the jet stream to that part of the US. That might suggest that if those regions cut their emissions drastically, the problem will be solved. I think most climate scientists would consider the warming arctic to be a global phenomenon based upon rising CO2 concentrations over years/decades, which will tend to even out regardless of which continent actually emitted the CO2.
Right.  CO2 as well several other ghg’s are well mixed and fairly uniformly distributed in the troposphere, and have residence times (=mass/flux) that exceed annual time scales and can even be as long as century time scales.  
That helps explain why localized changes in emissions will not have localized effects.  It’s the same reason that you can’t sustain a water quality improvement effort in the bay of a lake (unless you disconnect that area entirely); as soon as you do the overwhelming mass and prevailing water quality of the rest of the lake will simply mix in and you’re back to where you started.

There have been significant improvements in other air quality problem areas and so they can provide some guidance, but yet they’re fundamentally different.  For example you could examine either the reduction of acid rain and the reduction of CFCs.  Both are at least partial success stories. Both of those had different properties however - acid rain contaminants (NOx and SOx) have short residence times (mainly because they rain out) and more localized sources (particularly SOx).  CFCs are more uniformly mixed but have a limited number of sources that can be more easily controlled.

In contrast CO2, CH4, N2O are more ubiquitous in terms of sources and have those long residence times in the atmosphere that make them hard to reduce and in need of a global scale response.  Localized efforts won’t get it done.

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 10314
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #156 on: January 11, 2018, 12:36:46 PM »






Anyone care to comment on the similarity of the curves, 1800-present?
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

bwarbiany

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 5380
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #157 on: January 11, 2018, 02:37:22 PM »
I look at it more from an economic perspective, anyway. I work in the energy & sustainability space, and various energy efficiency, energy management, and renewable energy technologies are all very economic in most parts of the country. 
It might surprise you to know that a few years ago when the construction industry was in shambles and there was a proposed gov't program humorously called "cash for caulkers", I [as a pretty fervent libertarian] actually thought it was a really good targeted economic stimulus package. It had all of the following positive elements:
1) Many people don't live in their houses long enough for energy efficiency improvements to pay for themselves, and energy efficiency is not heavily valued in the home resale market enough to recoup investment upon sale. Thus, the net aggregate spending on energy efficiency is lower than would make sense if people stayed in a house long-term, making it a perfect opportunity for a subsidy.
2) Homes are durable goods, so the life cycle of many energy efficiency improvements is very long-term.
3) At the time, the people hardest hit by the recession were those in the construction/building trades. This would have been a great targeted way to get those people some work while the housing crisis worked itself through. 
Lack of energy efficiency is a negative externality caused by high retrofit costs and a long payback horizon. If there was ever a reason to suggest that gov't subsidy might actually make sense, this is a perfect example. 
Instead, the gov't decided to throw money into "cash for clunkers", destroying assets which increased the sale price of older used cars [thus hurting the low-income] in order to prop up the auto industry so that the people who weren't impacted by the recession could buy shiny new vehicles. Stupidity.

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 10314
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #158 on: January 11, 2018, 03:04:27 PM »
Cash for clunkers.. just The Guv propping up one of the industries it bailed out...
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

CWSooner

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 3991
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #159 on: January 12, 2018, 06:40:41 PM »
I'm not a scientist or an engineer, although I have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express.

I'm a historian.  But for two years, I taught physical geography and military geography at West Point.  In the Department of Geography and Environmental Engineering.

I was in the geography "group" within the department, but also interacted with the environmental engineers and the mapping, charting, and geodesy instructors.  This was in the mid-'90s, and AGW/AGCG was not a big deal.  We were closer in time to the "Global Cooling" scare of the late '70s than we were to to today's concerns.

But I remember a couple of things from that experience that seem to have significance today.  One was that the atmosphere does not act like a greenhouse.  So "greenhouse gasses" is really a misnomer.  Of course, it's just a label, and we use misleading labels all the time.  I don't see any harm to it in this case.  But the second was that CO2 is maybe the least "greenhouse gas-ish" of all the "greenhouse gasses."  It just doesn't trap heat very well.

Am I mis-remembering this?  Or were my engineering colleagues mistaken about CO2?

I addition, I have seen long time-span charts that showed times when CO2 levels were significantly higher than now and temps were significantly lower, and vice-versa.
Play Like a Champion Today

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 10314
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #160 on: January 12, 2018, 07:31:43 PM »
That is all valid CDub. The "studies" that are currently underway and those that have been published over the past 10 years or so are influenced by those who fund them.

It would be really nice if people would set things aside and do some of their own research. 

Yes, the climate is changes. Always has, and always will.

We are going to have a cold, wet winter - La Nina. That is caused by cooling in the Pacific Ocean. Cooling in an ocean. Not warming. Cooling.

People want to cite the shrinking ice caps, but when the ice caps grow, and they do in any given year, you hear... crickets.


Dropping the "agenda" would be a good thing. This country and many others are more environmentally conscious than ever.

We need to bring our focus elsewhere - like uniting our people. Otherwise, you might have another Civil War to study.
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

FearlessF

  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 13721
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #161 on: January 13, 2018, 10:57:14 AM »
just returned from Texas

it's much warmer there

and it's about 5-10 degrees warmer in Austin than Dallas - better for playing golf in shorts

let's ALL move there
"Courage; Generosity; Fairness; Honor; In these are the true awards of manly sport."

bwarbiany

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 5380
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #162 on: January 13, 2018, 01:38:24 PM »
Dropping the "agenda" would be a good thing. This country and many others are more environmentally conscious than ever.
I do agree with this. Global warming has become a sign of political affiliation, not scientific belief. 

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 10314
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #163 on: January 13, 2018, 02:11:44 PM »
For the most part, that statement is highly accurate. Simple minds and all that.

(That is not an indictment of this place, mind you. Just a general observation.)
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

bwarbiany

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 5380
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #164 on: January 13, 2018, 03:10:11 PM »
just returned from Texas

it's much warmer there
 Beautiful day in SoCal... It's nice to take the Jeep out without needing to put the top up, any time during the year. 

bwarbiany

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 5380
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #165 on: January 13, 2018, 03:14:19 PM »
For the most part, that statement is highly accurate. Simple minds and all that.

(That is not an indictment of this place, mind you. Just a general observation.)
Agreed. The level of discourse here is miles ahead of a lot of other forums [incl. the Area 51 board here lol].

bwarbiany

  • Team Captain
  • *******
  • Posts: 5380
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #166 on: January 13, 2018, 03:18:39 PM »
Never gets old...


MichiFan87

  • Player
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 796
  • Liked:
Re: Weather, Climate, and Environment
« Reply #167 on: January 13, 2018, 04:51:26 PM »
It might surprise you to know that a few years ago when the construction industry was in shambles and there was a proposed gov't program humorously called "cash for caulkers", I [as a pretty fervent libertarian] actually thought it was a really good targeted economic stimulus package. It had all of the following positive elements:
1) Many people don't live in their houses long enough for energy efficiency improvements to pay for themselves, and energy efficiency is not heavily valued in the home resale market enough to recoup investment upon sale. Thus, the net aggregate spending on energy efficiency is lower than would make sense if people stayed in a house long-term, making it a perfect opportunity for a subsidy.
2) Homes are durable goods, so the life cycle of many energy efficiency improvements is very long-term.
3) At the time, the people hardest hit by the recession were those in the construction/building trades. This would have been a great targeted way to get those people some work while the housing crisis worked itself through.
Lack of energy efficiency is a negative externality caused by high retrofit costs and a long payback horizon. If there was ever a reason to suggest that gov't subsidy might actually make sense, this is a perfect example.
Instead, the gov't decided to throw money into "cash for clunkers", destroying assets which increased the sale price of older used cars [thus hurting the low-income] in order to prop up the auto industry so that the people who weren't impacted by the recession could buy shiny new vehicles. Stupidity.
This is why energy efficiency incentive programs exist and many companies like the one I work for offer financing options, as well. The non-residential sectors (commercial, industrial, governmental, non-profits) are also the major focus of these programs and the companies involved in them, though residential programs exist, too. To your point, improving building codes in the first place is incredibly important, too.
On a tangential note, GM just announced that they're ready to manufacture autonomous vehicles to deploy next year (as I understand it, they will own them all), starting in San Francisco and Phoenix, unsurprisingly, where they've already been tested. It will be interesting to follow how quickly they are adopted and what happens. Eventually, car ownership will likely be obsolete except perhaps in very remote areas.
“When your team is winning, be ready to be tough, because winning can make you soft. On the other hand, when your team is losing, stick by them. Keep believing”
― Bo Schembechler

 

Associate Links/Search