Greenhouse gas emissions are the biggest problem the world faces. It is a problem of apocalyptic proportions. We need to reduce emissions at all costs to avoid catastrophic climate change. We must cut emissions or die, basically.
Hahahaha! This is the default setting, yes. You're bad for using X, Y, or Z but I'm not because I NEED it and you don't because you're bad. We may not have a circular economy but circular logic some people excel at.
Goofballs abound, even with educated people pretending to practice science and research. The entire greenie movement is misplaced and the climate catastrophists are truly insane. The world wide effort should be about conservation - the wise use of natural resources. But the leftwingnuts have corrupted their own thinking and movement with non-scientific conclusions about junk science studies. Perhaps we could characterize this as a bunch of charlatans.
Charlatans is too kind of a word to describe those involved in the faux climate crisis cult. My favorite is "snake oil salesman" as it brings to mind the place where all of these pseudo scientists belong...the midway at a carnival or circus...or from the back of a horse drawn wagon extolling the virtues of whatever they're selling. Late nite TV would be a good place as well with their hucksters of miracle this and that. But, that's just me.
I wonder if the emissions created to make covid masks that don't work according to researchers are "well spent"? Or the emissions created to make super glue protestors use to glue themselves to the street? So many topics to study. Build more supercomputers!
The best thing about the Greenies (even the highly credentialed ones) is that they seem to unequivocally silo everything at a particular moment. Something is either 100% abhorrently bad (e.g. an ICE vehicle) or, on the other hand, a perfect solution to the world's apocalyptic problem (e.g. EVs, wind, solar). You are not allowed to discuss tradeoffs. All decisions in this realm are digital....yea or nay.
I tend to disagree. Many human behaviors which can be fine, or even highly positive, in a certain dose, can indeed be harmful if taken to the extreme. Exercise is a perfect example. There can be a point where it is unquestionably too much. Protecting the planet is no different. 100% elimination of fossil fuels as a goal is flat out stupid. But hey, this engineering professor at Stanford says I'm wrong, so I should sit down and shut up.
Good one, Irina. Regarding data centers, and "..the LUMI supercomputer, ... which is carbon-negative because it gets its power from a nearby river and heats a nearby village.", investors have a principle called "opportunity cost" (Opportunity cost is the cost of what is given up when choosing one thing over another.) I can't help wonder what else that energy (and river) could have been used for - maybe some things that would actually benefit people? Opportunity lost.
Thanks, Al. That's a very good point. That professor says LUMI heats the nearby village, I assume with waste heat, which is certainly a positive but I don't know about the opportunity cost of the whole thing.
Do you remember the old joke about the guy under a streetlamp at night, looking for a lost nickel? He lost it up the street aways, but the light was better under the lamp to look for it.
A long time ago, when scientists were first theorizing about certain gasses acting as "greenhouse gasses, they first recognized that there are three gasses in particular which could have significant effect on heat retention versus heat radiation.
Gas number one has been measured at up to 4.0% in the atmosphere.
Gas number two has been measured at up to 0.04% in the atmosphere.
Gas number three has been measured at around 0.0002% in the atmosphere.
Of the three gasses, two of them can be accurately measured and modeled as to input to the atmosphere, output from the atmosphere, and net effect on heat.
The third gas cannot be scientifically measured because it demonstrates extreme changes with short distances, short changes in altitude, hourly, and daily changes, and weekly, monthly and seasonal changes, as well as longer term trends. Thus the number of sensing devices to accurately measure its effect would be astronomically expensive, not to mention invasive upon the environment and world economy. Furthermore, its influence is subtle, sometimes keeping heat in, other times reflecting it out to space, and there's no reliable measure to tell what it is doing when. So they don't do it, in fact they rarely ever talk about it.
Do you know what it is? And, do you know what its concentration is, gas #1, #2, or #3?
Then, when you get over that little oversight, scientists ALSO know that long term changes in the climate are controlled over 90% by the water on the planet, and only 10% by the atmosphere. What is known as the global heat conveyor belt are the main warm currents and cold currents of water in the oceans, such as the Gulf Stream. It is known and understood that any changes in the locations, directions, and magnitude of these currents can and can bring about dramatic changes, sometimes very rapidly, ice ages or alarming warming trends. Just look at what the El Nino/La Nina oscillation does!
But here again, scientists have a problem. The ocean currents cannot be measured reliably with any remote sensing devices. In order to really know what they are doing, how much, where, and when, ocean scientists have long understood that they really need millions, of individual sensing devices, adrift in the oceans, in every location, at every different depth, reporting back by radio direction, speed, temperature, and salinity, and then they need the computing power to process all that data.
And guess what nobody could possibly afford to do these days, so they don't do it?
This is why the "science of climate change" is completely bogus and it is completely failing in all of its predictions. Everybody is looking under the lamp post because there is more light there, but the real big changes are happening down the street in the bushes, in the darkness......
Thanks for your insight. I searched and found this gem: "Though methane makes up far less of the atmosphere (.0002%) than carbon dioxide, it is 20 times more potent than CO 2 as a greenhouse gas...and this - "“But since water vapor (your #1, I think) is itself a greenhouse gas, rising water vapor causes yet higher temperatures. We refer to this process as a positive feedback, and it is thought to be the most important positive feedback in the climate system. In short, it’s true that water vapor is in some sense the “biggest” greenhouse gas involved in climate change.."
Seventh grade arithmetic. 20 times 0.0002 is 0.004. That's still vanishingly small. It is known that clouds in the daytime can reflect sunlight out into outer space, keeping the planet cooler than it would be otherwise, but at night they keep heat in. But that's seriously simplistic. And, like I said, studying it in detail is cost-prohibitive. Sometimes its more valuable to say "we don't really know" than to guess and be wrong....as Irina and others keep on pointing out, the "transition" narrative is doing serious harm to economic growth....
Let’s see if I understand.... running lame ass computer models to wrongly predict climate change so academics can keep their phony baloney jobs is essential to the survival of the human race. Farming, however, is not, and must be stopped. Am I on the right track?
The good professors alarm is really without merit. All of the data centers I’m familiar with run on 100% renewable power, according to their owners (RECs) and I seriously doubt that scientific research uses as much data center capacity as Xwitter or Netflix
They are… the hot spots now are Virginia with good fiber optic access to DC, and Arizona with good access to LA/Hollywood, and cheap power. I’m not aware of a big push to build data centers to accommodate Princeton.
A medium size data center uses 900,000 MWH per year. Enough power for 800,000 homes. AI data centers will use three times that much. Connecting one to the grid is like adding a small city. We have been thinking about this for a while and will likely recommend off grid, on site power… large industrial gas turbines, rather than attempt a grid connection. Cheaper and more reliable.
As Tammy Neimeth shared - I think we need to use "Personal Carbon Capture - this is critcal - :) oh by the way, I love your reading these articles - I get my "Irina Fix" in listenting to the article. It is so fun hearing your voice. - https://youtu.be/G3kzDSNysNw?si=BYxKw_xPW9VrtrF- Personal Carbon capture video - worth watching!!!! Thanks Tammy.
Her vocabulary betrays everything. "Emissions" are the byproducts of life. When a higher form of energy is reduced to a lower form of energy, pollution is given off. 100% percent of the time. Check your toilet bowl. In the realm of the profit needed from Human action to create a flourishing and sustaining human presence, Palmroth checks it all the time. She judges the morality of the Human Being's nature to seek profit by how much pollution it puts out. And Palmroth can only live in a world where everyone feels that way.
❤️ You made me smile and snicker. Thsnk you for calling out some of the absurd bullshit in this world so I don’t have to and can get back to my very ungreen hobbies. 😘👍
Don’t concern yourself Irina, the arguments over anthropogenic global warming (AGW), a result it’s been said of our hubristic lifestyles and addiction to Flammable Fossils seem to have been squashed at COP28 UAE, with catchphrase of the fossil fuel anti AGW brigade being ‘The adults are now back behind the steering wheel’ as stated by Doomsberg as they peddle their latest report beliefs from one podcaster to another, here’s just one “CapitalCosm - OIL GLUT ALERT! Are We Overflowing With Energy Now?? | Doomberg Video”. It states we’re now in age of (New Oil) a product of advanced extraction and refinery technology resulting in redefining what was Crude Conventional Oil, but now to be defined, as made up of Tight (Shale) Oil condensate and NG liquids (New Oil), and this to happen across the World giving New Oil at least 50 plus years of life, and this along with redefining Natural Gas as Fossil Gas making it seem friendlier, and promoting it as the quickest and best solution to achieving Net Zero without affecting lifestyles.
But whatever we do we’re on the road to screwing the biophysical world up in series of poly and metacrisis, so baring we nuke ourselves first of which there’s a high possibility (Doomsday clock’s currently set a 90 seconds to midnight, closest its been to midnight since it’s inception in 1947), at some point in next few centuries humanity will have its lifestyle moved back plateauing in the lifestyle of 17th century, and thereafter in a series of step downs in lifestyles moving back to who knows where.
For those that aren’t aware there have been 5 mass extinctions in Gaia’s history, with new life forms developing after each mass extinction (ref Peter Brannen’s book “The Ends of the World”). There’s very little humans can do about these extinctions which happen over millions to billions of years as Gaia renews herself. So whether we nuke, pollute or diminish our resources to point it can’t sustain more than 2 billion human souls, does any of it really matter as none of us alive now will be around to witness it🤔
How could anyone begrudge John Kerry his private jet or Al Gore his ginormous energy guzzling mansion. These are great men doing extraordinary things for the betterment of our one and only planet. They deserve everything they get--especially ridicule.
Hey! If there is was ever a God, a God acting to restore the goodness of his creation, He’d/It would have to carrying out another 40 days and 40 nights of rain creating a flood likes of what Noah had to deal with, before sending his son Jesus, as Jesus would never otherwise be believed if he used his last set of miracles, and even if he didn’t use private planes but teleported himself from one place to another. But then come to think of it we have been getting a lot of rain lately🤔
I wonder when soap and warm water will be in the net-zero crosshairs?
At various points and times in the Middle Ages, bathing was considered a decadent activity. It could be considered decadent again…oh, I meant bathing could lead to “global boiling. “
“Decadent” is such an old fashioned word. Time to be modern!
It already is. Showers should only take 5 minutes, don'cha know? At least that's what the flier from Austin Energy regularly tells me in a smug self-righteous tone. Pretty skilled of them to get that tone into writing.
Oh, they already are. I still remember last year's call in some European countries for shorter and colder showers, with one EU commissioner famously urging people to say "Take that, Putin!" while they take their 3-minute showers. What a year 2022 was...
Hahahaha! This is the default setting, yes. You're bad for using X, Y, or Z but I'm not because I NEED it and you don't because you're bad. We may not have a circular economy but circular logic some people excel at.
It is amazing how the emissions for me not for thee crowd is wholly oblivious to people's welfare. Just their own.
It really is amazing, yes.
Goofballs abound, even with educated people pretending to practice science and research. The entire greenie movement is misplaced and the climate catastrophists are truly insane. The world wide effort should be about conservation - the wise use of natural resources. But the leftwingnuts have corrupted their own thinking and movement with non-scientific conclusions about junk science studies. Perhaps we could characterize this as a bunch of charlatans.
Charlatans is too kind of a word to describe those involved in the faux climate crisis cult. My favorite is "snake oil salesman" as it brings to mind the place where all of these pseudo scientists belong...the midway at a carnival or circus...or from the back of a horse drawn wagon extolling the virtues of whatever they're selling. Late nite TV would be a good place as well with their hucksters of miracle this and that. But, that's just me.
Maybe that’s what they should do, go on QVC to sell their vision
I wonder if the emissions created to make covid masks that don't work according to researchers are "well spent"? Or the emissions created to make super glue protestors use to glue themselves to the street? So many topics to study. Build more supercomputers!
Or the emissions from all those plastics they are wearing...
So in effect; Working in a structure inhabited by scientists guarantees you a well regulated comfortably oxygenated atmosphere? Excellent expose!
:D Excellent!
The best thing about the Greenies (even the highly credentialed ones) is that they seem to unequivocally silo everything at a particular moment. Something is either 100% abhorrently bad (e.g. an ICE vehicle) or, on the other hand, a perfect solution to the world's apocalyptic problem (e.g. EVs, wind, solar). You are not allowed to discuss tradeoffs. All decisions in this realm are digital....yea or nay.
I tend to disagree. Many human behaviors which can be fine, or even highly positive, in a certain dose, can indeed be harmful if taken to the extreme. Exercise is a perfect example. There can be a point where it is unquestionably too much. Protecting the planet is no different. 100% elimination of fossil fuels as a goal is flat out stupid. But hey, this engineering professor at Stanford says I'm wrong, so I should sit down and shut up.
Good point. Moderation is certainly not in fashion with the crusaders.
Good one, Irina. Regarding data centers, and "..the LUMI supercomputer, ... which is carbon-negative because it gets its power from a nearby river and heats a nearby village.", investors have a principle called "opportunity cost" (Opportunity cost is the cost of what is given up when choosing one thing over another.) I can't help wonder what else that energy (and river) could have been used for - maybe some things that would actually benefit people? Opportunity lost.
Thanks, Al. That's a very good point. That professor says LUMI heats the nearby village, I assume with waste heat, which is certainly a positive but I don't know about the opportunity cost of the whole thing.
Do you remember the old joke about the guy under a streetlamp at night, looking for a lost nickel? He lost it up the street aways, but the light was better under the lamp to look for it.
A long time ago, when scientists were first theorizing about certain gasses acting as "greenhouse gasses, they first recognized that there are three gasses in particular which could have significant effect on heat retention versus heat radiation.
Gas number one has been measured at up to 4.0% in the atmosphere.
Gas number two has been measured at up to 0.04% in the atmosphere.
Gas number three has been measured at around 0.0002% in the atmosphere.
Of the three gasses, two of them can be accurately measured and modeled as to input to the atmosphere, output from the atmosphere, and net effect on heat.
The third gas cannot be scientifically measured because it demonstrates extreme changes with short distances, short changes in altitude, hourly, and daily changes, and weekly, monthly and seasonal changes, as well as longer term trends. Thus the number of sensing devices to accurately measure its effect would be astronomically expensive, not to mention invasive upon the environment and world economy. Furthermore, its influence is subtle, sometimes keeping heat in, other times reflecting it out to space, and there's no reliable measure to tell what it is doing when. So they don't do it, in fact they rarely ever talk about it.
Do you know what it is? And, do you know what its concentration is, gas #1, #2, or #3?
Then, when you get over that little oversight, scientists ALSO know that long term changes in the climate are controlled over 90% by the water on the planet, and only 10% by the atmosphere. What is known as the global heat conveyor belt are the main warm currents and cold currents of water in the oceans, such as the Gulf Stream. It is known and understood that any changes in the locations, directions, and magnitude of these currents can and can bring about dramatic changes, sometimes very rapidly, ice ages or alarming warming trends. Just look at what the El Nino/La Nina oscillation does!
But here again, scientists have a problem. The ocean currents cannot be measured reliably with any remote sensing devices. In order to really know what they are doing, how much, where, and when, ocean scientists have long understood that they really need millions, of individual sensing devices, adrift in the oceans, in every location, at every different depth, reporting back by radio direction, speed, temperature, and salinity, and then they need the computing power to process all that data.
And guess what nobody could possibly afford to do these days, so they don't do it?
This is why the "science of climate change" is completely bogus and it is completely failing in all of its predictions. Everybody is looking under the lamp post because there is more light there, but the real big changes are happening down the street in the bushes, in the darkness......
Thanks for your insight. I searched and found this gem: "Though methane makes up far less of the atmosphere (.0002%) than carbon dioxide, it is 20 times more potent than CO 2 as a greenhouse gas...and this - "“But since water vapor (your #1, I think) is itself a greenhouse gas, rising water vapor causes yet higher temperatures. We refer to this process as a positive feedback, and it is thought to be the most important positive feedback in the climate system. In short, it’s true that water vapor is in some sense the “biggest” greenhouse gas involved in climate change.."
Seventh grade arithmetic. 20 times 0.0002 is 0.004. That's still vanishingly small. It is known that clouds in the daytime can reflect sunlight out into outer space, keeping the planet cooler than it would be otherwise, but at night they keep heat in. But that's seriously simplistic. And, like I said, studying it in detail is cost-prohibitive. Sometimes its more valuable to say "we don't really know" than to guess and be wrong....as Irina and others keep on pointing out, the "transition" narrative is doing serious harm to economic growth....
Let’s see if I understand.... running lame ass computer models to wrongly predict climate change so academics can keep their phony baloney jobs is essential to the survival of the human race. Farming, however, is not, and must be stopped. Am I on the right track?
The good professors alarm is really without merit. All of the data centers I’m familiar with run on 100% renewable power, according to their owners (RECs) and I seriously doubt that scientific research uses as much data center capacity as Xwitter or Netflix
Don't forget Amazon...they're building them like crazy in VA.
They are… the hot spots now are Virginia with good fiber optic access to DC, and Arizona with good access to LA/Hollywood, and cheap power. I’m not aware of a big push to build data centers to accommodate Princeton.
A medium size data center uses 900,000 MWH per year. Enough power for 800,000 homes. AI data centers will use three times that much. Connecting one to the grid is like adding a small city. We have been thinking about this for a while and will likely recommend off grid, on site power… large industrial gas turbines, rather than attempt a grid connection. Cheaper and more reliable.
This is A LOT of electricity demand...
That was my understanding, too, Lee. Climate modellers are essential.
If we just get rid of cows and stop people from breathing we’re halfway there.
But only regular people, not scientists.
As Tammy Neimeth shared - I think we need to use "Personal Carbon Capture - this is critcal - :) oh by the way, I love your reading these articles - I get my "Irina Fix" in listenting to the article. It is so fun hearing your voice. - https://youtu.be/G3kzDSNysNw?si=BYxKw_xPW9VrtrF- Personal Carbon capture video - worth watching!!!! Thanks Tammy.
Right! A lovely idea that will make us all rich!
Her vocabulary betrays everything. "Emissions" are the byproducts of life. When a higher form of energy is reduced to a lower form of energy, pollution is given off. 100% percent of the time. Check your toilet bowl. In the realm of the profit needed from Human action to create a flourishing and sustaining human presence, Palmroth checks it all the time. She judges the morality of the Human Being's nature to seek profit by how much pollution it puts out. And Palmroth can only live in a world where everyone feels that way.
❤️ You made me smile and snicker. Thsnk you for calling out some of the absurd bullshit in this world so I don’t have to and can get back to my very ungreen hobbies. 😘👍
You're very welcome! Enjoy your hobbies! :)
Don’t concern yourself Irina, the arguments over anthropogenic global warming (AGW), a result it’s been said of our hubristic lifestyles and addiction to Flammable Fossils seem to have been squashed at COP28 UAE, with catchphrase of the fossil fuel anti AGW brigade being ‘The adults are now back behind the steering wheel’ as stated by Doomsberg as they peddle their latest report beliefs from one podcaster to another, here’s just one “CapitalCosm - OIL GLUT ALERT! Are We Overflowing With Energy Now?? | Doomberg Video”. It states we’re now in age of (New Oil) a product of advanced extraction and refinery technology resulting in redefining what was Crude Conventional Oil, but now to be defined, as made up of Tight (Shale) Oil condensate and NG liquids (New Oil), and this to happen across the World giving New Oil at least 50 plus years of life, and this along with redefining Natural Gas as Fossil Gas making it seem friendlier, and promoting it as the quickest and best solution to achieving Net Zero without affecting lifestyles.
But whatever we do we’re on the road to screwing the biophysical world up in series of poly and metacrisis, so baring we nuke ourselves first of which there’s a high possibility (Doomsday clock’s currently set a 90 seconds to midnight, closest its been to midnight since it’s inception in 1947), at some point in next few centuries humanity will have its lifestyle moved back plateauing in the lifestyle of 17th century, and thereafter in a series of step downs in lifestyles moving back to who knows where.
For those that aren’t aware there have been 5 mass extinctions in Gaia’s history, with new life forms developing after each mass extinction (ref Peter Brannen’s book “The Ends of the World”). There’s very little humans can do about these extinctions which happen over millions to billions of years as Gaia renews herself. So whether we nuke, pollute or diminish our resources to point it can’t sustain more than 2 billion human souls, does any of it really matter as none of us alive now will be around to witness it🤔
How could anyone begrudge John Kerry his private jet or Al Gore his ginormous energy guzzling mansion. These are great men doing extraordinary things for the betterment of our one and only planet. They deserve everything they get--especially ridicule.
Hey! If there is was ever a God, a God acting to restore the goodness of his creation, He’d/It would have to carrying out another 40 days and 40 nights of rain creating a flood likes of what Noah had to deal with, before sending his son Jesus, as Jesus would never otherwise be believed if he used his last set of miracles, and even if he didn’t use private planes but teleported himself from one place to another. But then come to think of it we have been getting a lot of rain lately🤔
I wonder when soap and warm water will be in the net-zero crosshairs?
At various points and times in the Middle Ages, bathing was considered a decadent activity. It could be considered decadent again…oh, I meant bathing could lead to “global boiling. “
“Decadent” is such an old fashioned word. Time to be modern!
Is it also time to hoard shampoo and conditioner?
It already is. Showers should only take 5 minutes, don'cha know? At least that's what the flier from Austin Energy regularly tells me in a smug self-righteous tone. Pretty skilled of them to get that tone into writing.
Oh, they already are. I still remember last year's call in some European countries for shorter and colder showers, with one EU commissioner famously urging people to say "Take that, Putin!" while they take their 3-minute showers. What a year 2022 was...