The House Bill Would Mean a Tax Hike for Millions of Seniors. Learn More

Reply
Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 12,554
Registered: ‎02-28-2008

Re: Making Hurricane Season Worse

Message 31 of 63 (257 Views)

So, if I look at the posts and the links, I think we can all agree that man made global climate change is making the hurricanes worse and more frequent. 

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 20,635
Registered: ‎11-09-2011

Re: Making Hurricane Season Worse

Message 32 of 63 (238 Views)

Coal appears cheaper only because Republicans have transfered the costs from the utilities to the general public. Here's how those costs get paid:

 

  • When Appalachian streams become polluted with sediment and heavy metals because of mountaintop removal mining, the public pays to clean up the water so it’s safe to drink — but they don’t pay the cost on their electric bill, they pay it on their water bill!
  • When a child in North Carolina suffers an asthma attack or ear infection because of a coal-burning TVA power plant in Tennessee, the North Carolina family pays the cost of the child’s medication — not TVA.
  • When a community in the Appalachian Mountains suffers from depreciated property values because a coal company is showering the town with coal dust, the homeowners pay the cost when they sell their homes and move away.
  • And when heavy coal trucks destroy the roads and bridges in the mountain towns, the taxpayers have to pay to fix the roads — not the trucking or coal companies. According to the study, the price of coal-generated electricity would be $0.18 per kW-Hr higher if it actually included these externalized costs.

The Harvard Study published 17 May 2007, catalogued the above costs extimated the hidden cost of burning coal to be between $330B and $500B each year. The"transfered cost" of $0.18/kW-hr would quadruple the cost of producing electricity by burning coal, from $0.041/kWhr to $0.221/kWhr

 

A few years ago the Indiana University School of Medicine did a study and determined that the public health cost of burning coal for Hoosiers was $5 billion annually. Pollution from burning coal causes heart disease, lung disease, and asthma and puts mercury into the environment. The American Lung Association estimates that 24,000 excess deaths nationally are caused by pollution from coal-fired power plants every year.

 

But so long as Republicans continue to allow this "cost-transfer" from the corporations to individual Americans, We the People will pay the true cost of burning coal for energy.

 

 

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 4,997
Registered: ‎10-25-2011

Re: Making Hurricane Season Worse

Message 33 of 63 (234 Views)

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

myexper wrote:

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

myexper wrote:

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

myexper wrote:

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

myexper wrote:

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

MIseker wrote:
can force industry to make changes without government regulations.<<< wont happen, thats why we have things like the paris accords. But i do my small part too. but without voting in regulations, i cant make coal burning power plants disappear. My elec is coal fired, and I have 2 nuke plants within 30 miles. There is a dam on my river that USED to produce enought for the town in 1900..it still could make some but..no generation at it. Not my decision.

Your utility company that has 1 coal fired, 2 nukes, and no hydro, made their decision based on construction costs, operating costs, and maintenance costs which are passed on to you so your monthly bill will be the lowest.  They also buy and sell electricity to other utilities based on their operating costs.  They also aren't looking at the "feel good" solutions for either political party, which will BTW, raise your rates.


I'd rather have my rates raised than be poisoned by the mercury (and all else) in coal fired emissions.

 


Then my suggestion is move to another planet where they have "your rules".

I never stated any "rules" NOTHAPPENING.  You made that up!

 

 

  All electric utilities operate NOT your way.

All? ........ wrong again! 

Only 30% of our electric power comes from coal.


 


It's obvious that you didn't understand my post. 

I do understand it. You are looking for a means to disparage the left.

You don't understand which is why you told everyone the electric industry uses 30% coal.  They use coal because it is the cheaper fuel for some utilities.  The left disparages itself.  I don't need to do it for you.

It's not cheaper. The regulations on burning coal add to its cost. Utilities using coal will phase it out as soon as they are able to switch to natural gas or other means.

It's cheaper for those utilities that use coal.  That's why you still have 30% coal.  They will phase it out when another fuel is cheaper - not because you or the left say so.

Nope .... Natural gas is already cheaper!

 

 

I said utilities use the "mix" of power that is cheapest based on installation costs, operating costs, and maintenance costs. 

Which is why they have been and will continue to eliminate coal.

Yes they will if it is cheaper for them in the long run or NOT if it is cheaper to keep coal.

No ..... they will eliminate coal as soon as able to switch to natural gas.

They will eliminate coal as soon as another fuel is cheaper.  If natural gas is cheaper including the conversion costs, then they will convert.  Not because you or the left say so.

Nope ...... Natural gas is already cheaper!

 

 

That's why they all don't have one type of generation.  Understand how they make their decisions yet? 

Yup ..... Do you understand the health risks of burning coal yet?

Yes and that's why they use electrostatic precipitators on coal plants to minimize that risk.

And that adds cost to the burning of coal ..... and STILL does not eliminate its health hazards and climate changing emissions.

Precipitators DO add to the cost of burning coal and they are using it despite that because it is still cheaper for the 30% to use coal.  They won't convert because you don't like coal.

Never said that. They'll convert as soon as able as natural gas is already cheaper!

 

 

They don't walk in lockstep with the left lemmings.

And with that comment, you've just further proved my understanding (the real intent) of your post.

I see you're starting to catch on.

No ..... I always knew that you were never serious about  the topic and only used it as yet another opportunity to disparage the left!

As I said before, I don't need to disparage the left. 

Yet you do so anyway!

 

They have done that quite admirably themselves.

If you believe that, then why do you continue to disparage the left anyway?

A massive contradiction NOTHAPPENING!!!


 


 


 


 


 

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 11,063
Registered: ‎06-07-2010

Re: Making Hurricane Season Worse

Message 34 of 63 (228 Views)

myexper wrote:

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

myexper wrote:

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

myexper wrote:

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

myexper wrote:

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

MIseker wrote:
can force industry to make changes without government regulations.<<< wont happen, thats why we have things like the paris accords. But i do my small part too. but without voting in regulations, i cant make coal burning power plants disappear. My elec is coal fired, and I have 2 nuke plants within 30 miles. There is a dam on my river that USED to produce enought for the town in 1900..it still could make some but..no generation at it. Not my decision.

Your utility company that has 1 coal fired, 2 nukes, and no hydro, made their decision based on construction costs, operating costs, and maintenance costs which are passed on to you so your monthly bill will be the lowest.  They also buy and sell electricity to other utilities based on their operating costs.  They also aren't looking at the "feel good" solutions for either political party, which will BTW, raise your rates.


I'd rather have my rates raised than be poisoned by the mercury (and all else) in coal fired emissions.

 


Then my suggestion is move to another planet where they have "your rules".

I never stated any "rules" NOTHAPPENING.  You made that up!

 

 

  All electric utilities operate NOT your way.

All? ........ wrong again! 

Only 30% of our electric power comes from coal.


 


It's obvious that you didn't understand my post. 

I do understand it. You are looking for a means to disparage the left.

You don't understand which is why you told everyone the electric industry uses 30% coal.  They use coal because it is the cheaper fuel for some utilities.  The left disparages itself.  I don't need to do it for you.

It's not cheaper. The regulations on burning coal add to its cost. Utilities using coal will phase it out as soon as they are able to switch to natural gas or other means.

It's cheaper for those utilities that use coal.  That's why you still have 30% coal.  They will phase it out when another fuel is cheaper - not because you or the left say so.

 

 

I said utilities use the "mix" of power that is cheapest based on installation costs, operating costs, and maintenance costs. 

Which is why they have been and will continue to eliminate coal.

Yes they will if it is cheaper for them in the long run or NOT if it is cheaper to keep coal.

No ..... they will eliminate coal as soon as able to switch to natural gas.

They will eliminate coal as soon as another fuel is cheaper.  If natural gas is cheaper including the conversion costs, then they will convert.  Not because you or the left say so.

 

 

That's why they all don't have one type of generation.  Understand how they make their decisions yet? 

Yup ..... Do you understand the health risks of burning coal yet?

Yes and that's why they use electrostatic precipitators on coal plants to minimize that risk.

And that adds cost to the burning of coal ..... and STILL does not eliminate its health hazards and climate changing emissions.

Precipitators DO add to the cost of burning coal and they are using it despite that because it is still cheaper for the 30% to use coal.  They won't convert because you don't like coal.

 

 

They don't walk in lockstep with the left lemmings.

And with that comment, you've just further proved my understanding (the real intent) of your post.

I see you're starting to catch on.

No ..... I always knew that you were never serious about  the topic and only used it as yet another opportunity to disparage the left!

As I said before, I don't need to disparage the left.  They have done that quite admirably themselves.


 


 


 


 

Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 12,554
Registered: ‎02-28-2008

Re: Making Hurricane Season Worse

Message 35 of 63 (238 Views)

jfpinlvn wrote:

 

"The surprising thing about this development into a major hurricane was that it developed over relatively cool waters in the Atlantic – 26.5C — the rule of thumb is 28.5C for a major hurricane (and that threshold has been inching higher in recent years). On 8/31, all the models were predicting a major hurricane to develop, with some hints of a Cat 5.

 

So why did Irma develop into a major hurricane?  We can’t blame 26.5 C temperatures in the mid Atlantic on global warming.

 

The dynamical situation for Irma was unusually favorable.  In particular, the wind shear was very weak.

 

<snip>

 

Ever since Hurricane Harvey, the global warming – hurricane hysteria has ratcheted up to levels I haven’t seen since 2006.

 

NOAA GFDL has written a good article on Global Warming and Hurricanes.  Their main conclusions:

 

  1. It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).
  2. Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.
  3. There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the occurrence of very intense tropical cyclone in some basins–an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm occurrence is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical cyclones.
  4. Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones to have substantially higher rainfall rates than present-day ones, with a model-projected increase of about 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm center.

I agree wholeheartedly with #1.  I agree qualitatively with 2-4, but GFDL has much greater faith in the climate models than I do (and of course the 21st century projections assume substantial warming, which I don’t necessarily agree with).  However, I much prefer their model-based quantitative estimates (but they need some serious uncertainty estimates, including structural uncertainty), relative to hysterical arm waving by Mann and Trenberth using undergraduate basic thermodynamics reasoning.  There is nothing basic or simple about hurricanes."

 

More at:https://judithcurry.com/2017/09/08/hurricane-irma-eyes-florida/#more-23347

 

 

 


And yet:

the moral of the story is never confuse weather with man made climate change. Just because we can identify the changes to the climate and the macro impacts on glaciers, and dramatic global weather changes but that does not mean we can predict tomorrow's rainfall.  In this case, lots of things have to be included to see if the increased energy in the weather ecosphere is contributing to these bigger, nastier hurricanes. I am not a scientist but I would think it does. 

Trusted Social Butterfly
Posts: 2,939
Registered: ‎03-06-2012

Re: Making Hurricane Season Worse

[ Edited ]
Message 36 of 63 (251 Views)

gruffstuff wrote:

http://time.com/4931586/irma-hurricane-season-climate-change/

 

The One Number That Shows Why Climate Change Is Making Hurricane Season Worse

 

Hurricanes Irma and Harvey have reignited discussions about the link between global warming and extreme weather, with climate scientists now saying they can show the connections between the two phenomena better than ever before.

 

Scientists' explanation of how they do that involves a complex discussion of climate models, historical temperature data and probability. But understanding the link really comes down to one figure: the air can hold 7% more water with every degree Celsius that the temperature rises. That figure comes from the Clausius–Clapeyron equation, a widely accepted physical law established centuries ago long before any politicized debate on climate change.

 

“A warmer ocean makes a warmer atmosphere, a warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture,” says Gabriel Vecchi, a professor of geosciences at Princeton University who studies extreme weather events. “So, all other things equal, the same storm in a warmer planet would give you more rainfall.”

 

 

Ocean currents are slowing down, warmer water near the equator, bigger storms with more rainfall are possible as temperatures go up.


And yet:

 

"The surprising thing about this development into a major hurricane was that it developed over relatively cool waters in the Atlantic – 26.5C — the rule of thumb is 28.5C for a major hurricane (and that threshold has been inching higher in recent years). On 8/31, all the models were predicting a major hurricane to develop, with some hints of a Cat 5.

 

So why did Irma develop into a major hurricane?  We can’t blame 26.5 C temperatures in the mid Atlantic on global warming.

 

The dynamical situation for Irma was unusually favorable.  In particular, the wind shear was very weak.

 

<snip>

 

Ever since Hurricane Harvey, the global warming – hurricane hysteria has ratcheted up to levels I haven’t seen since 2006.

 

NOAA GFDL has written a good article on Global Warming and Hurricanes.  Their main conclusions:

 

  1. It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity. That said, human activities may have already caused changes that are not yet detectable due to the small magnitude of the changes or observational limitations, or are not yet confidently modeled (e.g., aerosol effects on regional climate).
  2. Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario). This change would imply an even larger percentage increase in the destructive potential per storm, assuming no reduction in storm size.
  3. There are better than even odds that anthropogenic warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the occurrence of very intense tropical cyclone in some basins–an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity. This increase in intense storm occurrence is projected despite a likely decrease (or little change) in the global numbers of all tropical cyclones.
  4. Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones to have substantially higher rainfall rates than present-day ones, with a model-projected increase of about 10-15% for rainfall rates averaged within about 100 km of the storm center.

I agree wholeheartedly with #1.  I agree qualitatively with 2-4, but GFDL has much greater faith in the climate models than I do (and of course the 21st century projections assume substantial warming, which I don’t necessarily agree with).  However, I much prefer their model-based quantitative estimates (but they need some serious uncertainty estimates, including structural uncertainty), relative to hysterical arm waving by Mann and Trenberth using undergraduate basic thermodynamics reasoning.  There is nothing basic or simple about hurricanes."

 

More at:https://judithcurry.com/2017/09/08/hurricane-irma-eyes-florida/#more-23347

 

 

 

Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 12,554
Registered: ‎02-28-2008

Re: Making Hurricane Season Worse

Message 37 of 63 (241 Views)

jfpinlvn wrote:

Richva wrote:

jfpinlvn wrote:

Clearly, those researchers will be labeled "deniers" by the alarmists.


The mayor of Tampa today stated that the current trend in Washington DC to deny the science behind man made climate change is making it so much tougher for the people in his state who have to deal with it. 

 

My suggestion? Join the flat earth society. It is obviously much less harmful to our country. 


Well, I guess if the mayor of Tampa said so, being an authority on the subject, I guess that's the final word.


Naw. He is just depending on all those scientists and scientific organizations who study the climate and all their findings support the theory of Man Made Climate Change.  The mayor understands that. He is just a guy who believes in science. 

Trusted Social Butterfly
Posts: 2,939
Registered: ‎03-06-2012

Re: Making Hurricane Season Worse

Message 38 of 63 (216 Views)

Richva wrote:

jfpinlvn wrote:

Clearly, those researchers will be labeled "deniers" by the alarmists.


The mayor of Tampa today stated that the current trend in Washington DC to deny the science behind man made climate change is making it so much tougher for the people in his state who have to deal with it. 

 

My suggestion? Join the flat earth society. It is obviously much less harmful to our country. 


Well, I guess if the mayor of Tampa said so, being an authority on the subject, I guess that's the final word.

Valued Social Butterfly
Posts: 4,997
Registered: ‎10-25-2011

Re: Making Hurricane Season Worse

[ Edited ]
Message 39 of 63 (236 Views)

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

myexper wrote:

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

myexper wrote:

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

myexper wrote:

NOTHAPPENING wrote:

MIseker wrote:
can force industry to make changes without government regulations.<<< wont happen, thats why we have things like the paris accords. But i do my small part too. but without voting in regulations, i cant make coal burning power plants disappear. My elec is coal fired, and I have 2 nuke plants within 30 miles. There is a dam on my river that USED to produce enought for the town in 1900..it still could make some but..no generation at it. Not my decision.

Your utility company that has 1 coal fired, 2 nukes, and no hydro, made their decision based on construction costs, operating costs, and maintenance costs which are passed on to you so your monthly bill will be the lowest.  They also buy and sell electricity to other utilities based on their operating costs.  They also aren't looking at the "feel good" solutions for either political party, which will BTW, raise your rates.


I'd rather have my rates raised than be poisoned by the mercury (and all else) in coal fired emissions.

 


Then my suggestion is move to another planet where they have "your rules".

I never stated any "rules" NOTHAPPENING.  You made that up!

 

 

  All electric utilities operate NOT your way.

All? ........ wrong again! 

Only 30% of our electric power comes from coal.


 


It's obvious that you didn't understand my post. 

I do understand it. You are looking for a means to disparage the left.

You don't understand which is why you told everyone the electric industry uses 30% coal.  They use coal because it is the cheaper fuel for some utilities.  The left disparages itself.  I don't need to do it for you.

It's not cheaper. The regulations on burning coal add to its cost. Utilities using coal will phase it out as soon as they are able to switch to natural gas or other means.

 

 

I said utilities use the "mix" of power that is cheapest based on installation costs, operating costs, and maintenance costs. 

Which is why they have been and will continue to eliminate coal.

Yes they will if it is cheaper for them in the long run or NOT if it is cheaper to keep coal.

No ..... they will eliminate coal as soon as able to switch to natural gas.

 

 

That's why they all don't have one type of generation.  Understand how they make their decisions yet? 

Yup ..... Do you understand the health risks of burning coal yet?

Yes and that's why they use electrostatic precipitators on coal plants to minimize that risk.

And that adds cost to the burning of coal ..... and STILL does not eliminate its health hazards and climate changing emissions.

 

 

They don't walk in lockstep with the left lemmings.

And with that comment, you've just further proved my understanding (the real intent) of your post.

I see you're starting to catch on.

No ..... I always knew that you were never serious about  the topic and only used it as yet another opportunity to disparage the left!


 


 


 

Treasured Social Butterfly
Posts: 12,554
Registered: ‎02-28-2008

Re: Making Hurricane Season Worse

Message 40 of 63 (248 Views)

When the posts, and quotes of other peoples' posts start to get a page or two long, I just like to state a few facts:

 

  • Like evolution and the speed of light being  the fastest you can go, Man Made Climate Change is a theory for which all studies have supported and none contradicted. 
  • The impact of excess Co2 has been shown to be the primary driver of climate change and man is the only possible source of the amount of C02 necessary.
  • Impacts of climate changes (increased temperatures, melting icecaps, weather pattern changes) have been more drastic than at any other time in the history of the earth and can be plotted in direct proportion to man's increased activities (C02)
  • CO2 is  a pollutant. In reducing CO2, man will also reduce other pollutants improving the quality of the environment. 

Wow,  Science is pretty impressive, eh?  OK, Now let's hear the bumper sticker arguments of the science deniers.