BajaNomad - The palm tree is going two feet under water

So where did the electricity come from to pump the water?
Have we built any hydro-electric dams in the last 3 decades?
Anyone think we could get one of those past the tree huggers today?

Hydrogen burns and leaves only water behind
There is a way using waste energy from dino-juice powerplants to make Hydrogen and then sequester the produced carbon back into the earth where it came from and its being done today.

There is NO WAY to get to 100% renewables because we have to have "base load" capacity. That's either dino juice power plants or batteries and there is NO WAY in HELL that we will ever see batteries able to carry the base load capacity- not only from the size and capacity stand point but from the environmental stand point of making batteries that large (mining, electricity required to make them, long term storage and disposal, replacement, etc).
We are decades away from doing anything like that.
If you don't understand base load you had better look it up
If you have a solution to that problem then lets hear it.

Old man yelling at the sky:
Yes, we remember your obsession with “base load.” Carry on, tilt at those windmills!

RFClark - 3-11-2024 at 06:49 AM

Cliffy,

The electricity comes from any available source that has unused capacity and is saved for future use. Think lakes used for storage here.

“The United States has 43 PSH plants with a combined generation capacity of 22 GW and an estimated energy
storage capacity of 553 GWh. 3 Despite very strong growth in battery installations in 2020–2022, the U.S. PSH
feet continued to provide most of the utility-scale power storage capacity (70%) and energy storage capacity
(96%) in 2022.“

https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2023-09/U.S.%20Hy...

Goat,

“Base Load” is what makes electrical grids work. When you’re out of “Base Load” you’re out of electricity!

[Edited on 3-11-2024 by RFClark]

RFClark - 3-11-2024 at 11:03 PM

Lee,

Thanks, but I’d rather watch you do the arguing! I also agree. Too many people is the problem!

RFClark - 3-12-2024 at 12:01 PM

👍

Mysterious, Rapid Surge in Legionnaires' Disease Linked to Cleaner Air

RFClark - 3-18-2024 at 04:43 AM

A mysterious and rapid rise in Legionnaires' disease, a severe bacterial lung infection, has been linked to cleaner air, in a US study of trends in sulfur dioxide pollution.

Over the last two decades, the incidence of Legionnaires' disease in the US has increased nine-fold, from around 1,100 cases reported in 2000 to nearly 10,000 in 2018. Europe and parts of Canada have reported similar increases, with cases up five- to seven-fold.

https://www.sciencealert.com/mysterious-rapid-surge-in-legio...

surabi - 3-18-2024 at 11:03 AM

"The researchers stress that reducing pollution is undoubtedly good for people and the environment; it's now a matter of using these findings to help inform strategies to limit Legionella exposure while maintaining good air quality and its many benefits."

RFClark - 3-18-2024 at 11:52 AM

The Currently Known negative consequences of removing emission related SO2 from the air:

1) The increased rate of air and sea temperature increases.

2) The increased rates of sunlight induced cancers.

3) The increased rates of diseases.

4) The reduced rate of cloud formation

Since there are a lot of tradeoffs to be weighed when undertaking geo-engineering there should be a discussion of the cost/benefit ratio to any proposed change(s) prior to undertaking the change(s).

Please note that no such reviews are known to have taken place in the case of SO2 removal. Please also note that the necessity of stopping the SO2 emissions from the Sudbury Ontario Super Stack are a entirely different issue as it was the world's largest single source SO2 emitter!

Also please note that while geo-engineering to remove SO2 is considered a “great benefit”. Geo-engineering to reduce the rate of the currently increased temperature rise is considered Evil and dangerous by those driving the climate change agenda!

Not a judgment just an observation of group’s stated positions!

[Edited on 3-18-2024 by RFClark]

JDCanuck - 3-19-2024 at 11:32 AM

Is it really population growth that's pushing demand for energy beyond our ability to create renewable clean sources?
Crypto currency created a huge burst in energy demand, and now we have AI. Here's another viewpoint, one that utilities are already ramping up for:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-obscene-ene...

It gets even more interesting when you consider the major beneficiaries of these huge increases in global demand of both energy and water are the same people who are forcing reductions in protein based foods, the cleanest fossil fuels(replacing the coal and other even more polluting solid fuels in 3rd world countries) and population increases upon the rest of the world. Think: Google, MSFT, Amazon, Netflix, and Facebook as some of the major influencers of our day.

[Edited on 3-19-2024 by JDCanuck]

mtgoat666 - 3-19-2024 at 01:24 PM

Quote: Originally posted by JDCanuck

Is it really population growth that's pushing demand for energy beyond our ability to create renewable clean sources?
Crypto currency created a huge burst in energy demand, and now we have AI. Here's another viewpoint, one that utilities are already ramping up for:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-obscene-ene...

It gets even more interesting when you consider the major beneficiaries of these huge increases in global demand of both energy and water are the same people who are forcing reductions in protein based foods, the cleanest fossil fuels(replacing the coal and other even more polluting solid fuels in 3rd world countries) and population increases upon the rest of the world. Think: Google, MSFT, Amazon, Netflix, and Facebook as some of the major influencers of our day.

[Edited on 3-19-2024 by JDCanuck]

Bitcoin and the like are useless ponzi schemes, sooner they die the better!

Re AI, the climate deniers like clarkie should try asking AI for advice, they would soon learn that their denials and protests are misguided and incorrect!

surabi - 3-19-2024 at 01:56 PM

Good article, JD. While people seem to blindly accept that overpopulation is the cause of high energy consumption, just like dealing with plastic pollution, individuals and businesses not being willing to change their habits or do things differently is the heart of the matter.

On an individual level, let's say a well-off person in a first world country, who cares more about their comfort level than their electricity bill, likes to have the air conditioning on in their home 24/7, in every room. They don't even turn it down or off if they are out of the
house for 8 hours a day.

That energy used (or wasted if they aren't even at home) could be used to power essential needs of other homes.

It's the same with food. People aren't starving in many places in the world because there isn't enough food to feed everyone. The amount of edible food that gets thrown away every day in affluent countries could feed millions of people. The problem is food distribution (including transportation cost, blockades that don't allow food to get to where it's needed, politics, tarrifs, etc), not overpopulation and the planet not producing enough food to feed everyone.

A friend of mine who was a middle school environmental studies teacher did a project with the kids where they collected all the garbage grom the school for 1 day. They separated it into classifications- paper and cardboard, plastic and other recyclables, food, both food garbage, like apple cores, and "edible food". Then they weighed it all. By far, the most amount of garbage was edible food- whole apples and oranges, untouched sandwiches still in the baggie mom had packed it in, etc. Meanwhile, children in refugee camps across the world would be happy to eat the apple cores .

We almost all heard, "Eat- children in Europe (Africa, wherever) are starving. Of course, us eating our peas wasn't going to put food in the bellies of starving children, so we'd roll our eyes.
But the basic idea was "don't waste" valuable things that other people want for.

[Edited on 3-19-2024 by surabi]

JDCanuck - 3-19-2024 at 02:47 PM

"We almost all heard, "Eat- children in Europe (Africa, wherever) are starving. Of course, us eating our peas wasn't going to put food in the bellies of starving children, so we'd roll our eyes.
But the basic idea was "don't waste" valuable things that other people want for. "

Evidently, you and I were raised by the same standards, by parents who lived through, saw or knew people who lacked the very basics to live and were forever impacted by it. Today it is far more common to watch people purposely (and boastfully) waste what they have while only blocks away from others that are in severe poverty and desperation.
We drove through and stayed overnite in Las Vegas at a famous hotel on the strip, and made a bad turn to get on the freeway, going blocks out of our way right past the camped homeless beneath the freeway. What an eye opener that was. I don't think I will ever forget that contrast in one of the most privileged countries in the world.

surabi - 3-19-2024 at 03:13 PM

You see that in so many places, especially cities. At one point my daughter lived in Vancouver on a lovely tree-lined street in a nice house with a well-kept little neighborhood park across the street. It was only 2 blocks from Hastings and Main, where all the drug addicts, prostitutes, and homeless people hang out. But those 2 blocks were worlds removed from each other.

RFClark - 3-19-2024 at 05:02 PM

JD,

I worked in Vancouver back in the late ‘80s. It was a nice place then. I used to drive across the Lyons Gate Bridge to work up the hill in North Van or East to Dominion Bridge before it became Hollywood style Sound Stages.

Social Credit ran B.C. In those days.

We visited Tofino last year. Boy has it changed!

JDCanuck - 3-21-2024 at 05:46 AM

By Fall this year, Alberta, the province with the highest thermal coal deposits will be entirely free of coal fired power plants, without resorting to nuclear power. This transition began in late 1970's by the utilities , but was claimed by the government to be their initiative around 2010. Twice this year so far the grid as been supplied by zero coal sourced power. Renewables are the fastest growing source of energy still, but greenhouse gases have been cut by over 50% overall so far, mainly through transition to natural gas and ongoing CCS initiatives to reach net zero in the near future.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/for-the-first-time-in-...

Meanwhile the costs of renewable sourced energy from wind and solar continues to decline while alternatives become more and more expensive.

https://www.irena.org/Publications/2023/Aug/Renewable-power-...

In 2010, the global weighted average LCOE of onshore wind was 95% higher than the lowest fossil fuel-fired cost; in 2022, the global weighted average LCOE of new onshore wind projects was 52% lower than the cheapest fossil fuel-fired solutions.

However, this improvement was surpassed by that of solar PV. This renewable power source was 710% more expensive than the cheapest fossil fuel-fired solution in 2010 but cost 29% less than the cheapest fossil fuel-fired solution in 2022.

For those of you interested in solar power in Baja, the cost has never been lower and you are fortunate enough to be living in the highest solar gain area of Canada, US and Mexico, especially if you are on the pacific coast near or north of Todos Santos,.

We experienced over 5.5 times the rated capacity per day on average throughout the year, with about 1/2 of that capability unused due to inability to phase in extra loads after the batteries were completely recharged in the afternoon periods in a 100% solar powered 2600 sq ft home. Before we sold the home, we were testing out atmospheric water generation to use that additional excess. This will likely be the next big challenge for the area, followed by EV vehicle recharging.

[Edited on 3-21-2024 by JDCanuck]

Lobsterman - 3-22-2024 at 05:29 AM

Goat and S are not the only experts on renewables and their total cost, benefits and shortcomings they produce. Here's an article I read this morning before my day starts.

There is always "the other side of the story (Paul Harvey)" as documented below by Dr. Timothy G. Nash. He is vice president emeritus of Northwood University and the director of the university’s McNair Center for the Advancement of Free Enterprise and Entrepreneurship.

"Proof that Wind and Solar are disasters, and the energy America really needs.

Forget the "science is settled." With energy policy, settling on the best energy sources is more important. Unfortunately, the debate over energy is dominated by agenda-driven outbursts and misleading statistics, from activists and governmental officials alike. That’s why we released a comprehensive report card that reviews every major energy source's benefits (and limitations).

We’re "grading the grid," so lawmakers and regulators don’t enact policies that are doomed to fail. Our analysis, the first of its kind, takes a holistic look at America's eight most important energy sources: natural gas, wind, solar, nuclear, coal, petroleum, geothermal and hydroelectric.

Most analyses look only at one or two factors with each energy source – usually cost. By contrast, we look at five key factors: reliability, feasibility, technological innovation, environmental and human impact, and cost. We assigned a one to 10 score in each category, averaging them for a letter grade.

We conclude that natural gas is the best energy source – and the only one to get an A. Its reliability and feasibility are high because natural gas plants can be ramped up and down to meet changing demand and are easy to build. At the same time, it gets a high grade for environmental and human impact, with ongoing innovation making natural gas cleaner with every passing year. And natural gas gets the highest grade for cost, because, when all associated costs are factored in, it’s our most affordable energy option.

What about coal and petroleum, the other traditional fossil fuels? They get, respectively, 80% and 70%. While it is reliable, petroleum has lower feasibility and higher costs, with little demand for increased use.

As for coal, it’s still broadly affordable, reliable and innovative (which helps lower its environmental impact). But it’s becoming less feasible, especially because of government policies. Coal produces a smaller share of U.S. electricity every year, and absent a major shift in policy, that declining trend is all but certain to continue.

What about nuclear? It gets a B+, with a score of 88%. It has the best environmental and human impact, since it’s completely clean and is seeing significant technological innovation. It’s also tied for being the most reliable since nuclear plants can run uninterrupted for years at a time.
Nuclear energy’s small drawbacks are feasibility and cost, yet neither is inherent. Government policy has dramatically increased nuclear energy’s price tag (mostly during construction), while regulatory pressure makes it harder to bring to market. With a change in policy, nuclear power could compete with natural gas for the highest grade.

Then there are the four main renewables – hydroelectric, geothermal, wind and solar.

Hydroelectric gets a B-, with 80%. That includes a perfect 10 for reliability since it can generate power on demand. It also gets high marks for cost, innovation and environmental impact. Yet hydroelectric falls short on market feasibility. The easiest dams to build went up decades ago in the locations where big dams can be located. It’s hard to envision a dramatic expansion in hydroelectric power.

As for geothermal, it gets a D+. While clean, it requires unique geographical conditions, making it hard (and expensive) to spread.

Finally, there’s wind and solar. Both get failing grades: 56% and 58%, respectively. While an "F" may surprise some, the grade reflects the nature of our holistic review, which looks beyond headlines to hard data.
Much of the praise for wind and solar comes down to cost, with the federal government labeling them the most affordable energy sources. Yet federal estimates only look at the cost of new electricity generation, ignoring the more affordable generation that comes from existing plants that have paid off their construction costs.

Nor does the federal government analyze the full cost of wind and solar, which involves taxpayer subsidies, not just utility rates. We estimate that when everything is accounted for, wind power can cost as much as 500% more than federal estimates.

Wind and solar also get low grades for their environmental and human impact. While the energy they produce is referred to as renewable, they both require massive increases in mineral extraction.

Their manufacture also relies on forced labor (such as the Uyghurs in China) and even children (such as de facto slaves in Congo). They require significant land use, threatening wildlife and huge swaths of nature. Finally, they’re inherently unreliable, since the wind isn’t always blowing, nor the sun always shining. As many parts of the U.S. are learning, more wind and solar power means more blackouts.

Energy policy should be based on facts, not hopes and dreams. Our study shows that the best way to pursue a cleaner future – one that’s economically affordable, reliable and clean – is to double down on natural gas and nuclear.

The worst path is more solar and wind, yet that’s the road that policymakers have chosen. By choosing energy sources that get failing grades, policymakers are setting America itself up for failure."

Dr. Timothy G. Nash is vice president emeritus of Northwood University and the director of the university’s McNair Center for the Advancement of Free Enterprise and Entrepreneurship.

Can brightening clouds buy us time to fight climate change?

RFClark - 3-22-2024 at 07:19 AM

Brightening Earth’s clouds so that they reflect more sunlight just might cool the planet — that is if we can figure out how to do it without causing any unintended harm. To test the theory out, a group of over 30 leading scientists have written up a research road map that was published in the journal Science Advances yesterday.

https://www.theverge.com/2024/3/21/24107762/marine-cloud-bri...

pacificobob - 3-22-2024 at 07:43 AM

Northwood University is a small, fairly new private business school, with an acceptance rate over 80%. I'm not seeing much in the science/technology/ research area. But don't let that get in the way of believing dr. Timothy (zero science or engineering degrees)nash's
notions on energy.

[Edited on 3-22-2024 by pacificobob]

AKgringo - 3-22-2024 at 07:47 AM

There is an explosion of life at the bottom of the food chain in both polar regions when 24 hours of sunlight beams down on nutrient rich waters.

The world would suffer a huge loss if that cycle was diminished.

JDCanuck - 3-22-2024 at 08:25 AM

Lobsterman: I am in agreement with that report in many cases, especially with converting existing coal fired plants to natural gas as being very easy, inexpensive and does not create high additional loads on mining and materials extraction. Resulting in 50% or more reductions in both CO2, greenhouse gases and particulates with very low costs and can be accomplished very quickly. In addition the newest combined cycle natural gas plants are producing energy at up to 65% efficiency as compared to coal at below 45%. The very rapid ramp up to power output is an additional benefit when additional power is needed on the grid.

The biggest problem with converting from coal to natural gas in recent years (note Europe's recent history) is the weaponization of supplies. Both through political manipulation in opposing alternate suppliers and creating high reliance on them as sole suppliers Russia has recently put a whole new light on this power source. Europe has been forced to build more coal fired plants as a result, rather than closing them down as previously planned. US is once again the primary supplier of LNG globally, and for very good reasons.

One big factor that the report does not mention is for individuals living off grid and requiring energy for their homes. This is where Solar and Wind power shines as being relatively fast and significantly less expensive than alternatives of extending grid power or portable generators.

[Edited on 3-22-2024 by JDCanuck]

RFClark - 3-22-2024 at 04:51 PM

PB,

Don’t let the fact that what the “Greens” are demanding isn’t helping enough get in the way of following Greta and Co. either!

mtgoat666 - 3-22-2024 at 05:40 PM

It seems that a few of you seniors are deathly afraid of the ideas and passion of kids!
Youthful idealism. Too bad some of you elders lost your spark!

[Edited on 3-23-2024 by mtgoat666]

pauldavidmena - 3-23-2024 at 06:44 AM

Quote: Originally posted by AKgringo

There is an explosion of life at the bottom of the food chain in both polar regions when 24 hours of sunlight beams down on nutrient rich waters.

The world would suffer a huge loss if that cycle was diminished.

My employer has done a great deal of exploration in what it calls the "Ocean Twilight Zone." Here is just one of many articles on the topic. The main takeaway is that life is possible in total darkness.

JDCanuck - 3-23-2024 at 08:36 AM

This may be the next stage of vehicle transport with minimal effect to the environment.

https://www.bmwusa.com/ix5-hydrogen.html

Hydrogen as a fuel has long been on the drawing boards and we have already been through one cycle of government investments in the "Hydrogen Hiway" without noticeable effect. Fuel cells have also been cycled in and out by various manufacturers on a few models and have not found sustained acceptance. The major benefits could be battery replacement costs and recharging times, while retaining the simplicity, torque and traction control advantages of electric drives.

[Edited on 3-23-2024 by JDCanuck]

mtgoat666 - 3-23-2024 at 09:21 AM

Quote: Originally posted by JDCanuck

This may be the next stage of vehicle transport with minimal effect to the environment.

https://www.bmwusa.com/ix5-hydrogen.html

Hydrogen as a fuel has long been on the drawing boards and we have already been through one cycle of government investments in the "Hydrogen Hiway" without noticeable effect. Fuel cells have also been cycled in and out by various manufacturers on a few models and have not found sustained acceptance. The major benefits could be battery replacement costs and recharging times, while retaining the simplicity, torque and traction control advantages of electric drives.

[Edited on 3-23-2024 by JDCanuck]

JDCanuck - 3-23-2024 at 09:49 AM

Quote: Originally posted by JDCanuck

Yeah, we also used hydrogen as a coolant in our generators at the power plant. Guys used to like filling balloons with it and lighting an attached fuse to see the explosion when it rose into the air. Its not something to mess around with, but a whole lot more predictable than gasoline droplets dispersed in the air.

[Edited on 3-23-2024 by JDCanuck]

Lee - 3-23-2024 at 10:00 AM

It seems that a few of you seniors are deathly afraid of the ideas and passion of kids!
Youthful idealism. Too bad some of you elders lost your spark!

[Edited on 3-23-2024 by mtgoat666]

Flavor of the month, Mr. Goat. Still, I consider Greta an inspiration. Just not the ''hero'' that you do.

Say, without knowing your age, if you're over 50, you're part of the elder syndrome. So, let's relax about this stuff. Civilization is coming to an end one day. Not in the next few years -- but you'll see if playing out -- the way some of us see it playing out now.

[/url]

https://twitter.com/GabbbarSingh/status/1748292457765245019?...

News Flash - Gasoline and Oil Burn Too!

RFClark - 3-23-2024 at 12:05 PM

Goat,

Oil Refinery Fires hundreds! Hydrogen Filled Dirigible Fires 1!

Just Saying!

JDCanuck - 3-23-2024 at 07:38 PM

Here is the stark reality of coal as a global power source, as mentioned previously on several occasions in this thread:

https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/coal-dirtiest-fossil-fuel-...

mtgoat666 - 3-23-2024 at 08:33 PM

How many people must die so gringos can get cheap goods from china, cheap goods from india, cheap power for their big screen TVs and pool pumps?

[Edited on 3-24-2024 by mtgoat666]

[Edited on 3-24-2024 by mtgoat666]

Tioloco - 3-23-2024 at 09:08 PM

How many people must die so gringos can get cheap goods from china, cheap goods from india, cheap power for their big screen TVs and pool pumps?

[Edited on 3-24-2024 by mtgoat666]

[Edited on 3-24-2024 by mtgoat666]

As if you really care. So hypocritical....

RFClark - 3-23-2024 at 09:34 PM

Goat,

How many Brits, Germans and Poles died mining coal? Plus the Chinese, Russians and Indians. Not for the U.S. but themselves?

Remember John L. Lewis? A great union leader. Who made the U.S. coal miners a great deal!

Your problem is you’re a the “glass is half empty” sort of goat!

US 41 - 3-24-2024 at 03:26 AM

This thread honestly needs to be locked and deleted. One of the biggest reasons I don't ever get on here that much is because everything turns into some stupid political debate. This is supposed to be a Baja travel related site. Where's the moderators?

AKgringo - 3-24-2024 at 07:52 AM

Quote: Originally posted by US 41

This thread honestly needs to be locked and deleted. One of the biggest reasons I don't ever get on here that much is because everything turns into some stupid political debate. This is supposed to be a Baja travel related site. Where's the moderators?

Actually, this thread has had hundreds of responses deleted over its duration. I am just guessing, but I think Doug leaves it up to act as bait for those who just can't resist going off topic.

Hopefully it will spare some of the other Baja relevant threads from rants.

[Edited on 3-25-2024 by AKgringo]

RFClark - 3-24-2024 at 01:14 PM

The topic here is more or less about climate change. Climate change has more or less a “Political Component” to it. That said discussing and posting current thinking on the subject is of value as weather does effect Baja California.

That “Component” varies widely depending on where you live and what you believe.

There probably is a “lighting rod” effect here as well. That is probably a “Good Thing”!

US 41 - 3-24-2024 at 07:21 PM

The topic here is more or less about climate change. Climate change has more or less a “Political Component” to it. That said discussing and posting current thinking on the subject is of value as weather does effect Baja California.

That “Component” varies widely depending on where you live and what you believe.

There probably is a “lighting rod” effect here as well. That is probably a “Good Thing”!

This thread should be moved to the Baja political section of the board at a minimum. The Hindenburg, Greta Thornburg, and coal miners have nothing to do whatsoever with Baja California. This thread has completely derailed and has nothing to do with the weather.

surabi - 3-25-2024 at 12:21 AM

Quote: Originally posted by US 41

This is supposed to be a Baja travel related site.

Where does it say it's only a Baja "travel related" site?
I see sections on all kinds of things, including non-Baja trip reports, Baja politics, Baja home building, a general Q and A section, which contains questions about many non-travel related things.
And climate change is affected by and affects travel.

[Edited on 3-25-2024 by surabi]

mtgoat666 - 3-25-2024 at 06:22 AM

Quote: Originally posted by US 41

If you don't like this thread, then scroll on by, ignore it, do not read it. Problem solved!

RFClark - 3-25-2024 at 11:05 PM

👍

Marc - 3-26-2024 at 05:16 AM

surabi - 4-1-2024 at 10:08 PM

New desalinization technology:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/innovative-sola...

Tioloco - 4-1-2024 at 11:00 PM

Quote: Originally posted by surabi

New desalinization technology:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/innovative-sola...

What is the relevance to this thread?

JZ - 4-2-2024 at 12:13 AM

Uh-oh.

March 30, 2024
Climate Activists Dragged Out of New York Auto Show After Tossing Oil on EV
https://autos.yahoo.com/climate-activists-dragged-york-auto-...

A group of climate change activists poured quarts of oil on the floor and on vehicles at the opening day of the New York International Auto Show on Saturday morning. In an unusual twist, the protesters were speaking out against electric vehicles and really, all cars.

Extinction Rebellion, a U.K.-based activist group, took credit for the disruption today. Wearing t-shirts bearing the words “No EVs on a dead planet,” the protesters interrupted the opening ceremony by tossing oil on the hood of a Ford F-150 Lightning and all over the stage. Yelling “hit the emergency brake!” one of the protesters was seen carrying a Toyota swag bag, ironically

The climate activists claim that building EVs is as carbon-intensive, if not more so, than that of gas-powered cars. They believe cars “damage the climate in many ways above and beyond their gas consumption.”

JZ - 4-6-2024 at 11:35 PM

Interesting climate protest.
https://x.com/stillgray/status/1776831205826232580

Lunar nodal tide and mean sea level variation

RFClark - 4-7-2024 at 05:33 AM

Sea level changes due to the lunar node tide can amount to a few tenths of millimeters per year, which is significant compared to the sea level rise due to global warming. These changes can lead to local over- or underestimated long-term trends in sea level, and therefore should be considered when analyzing observational records to detect possible trend breaks[13]. While there are arguments suggesting that the theoretical equilibrium tide should adequately represent the lunar nodal tide[15], analyses of tide gauge records question this assumption[13][14][16]. Woodworth (2012[17]) identified several potential causes for departures from equilibrium theory but determining the best method to correct for the effect of the nodal tide on the mean sea level is still a topic of ongoing discussion.

https://www.coastalwiki.org/wiki/Long-period_lunar_tides

Cliffy - 4-7-2024 at 07:28 AM

Very interesting article to those who actually read it

I'd postulate that any "model" on sea level rise is just a guess without actual observation over a protracted period of time say 100 years.
You've got two 18.6 year cycles (with shorter ones included) to contend with and nothing but empirical data can prove or disprove any "guess" of what is actually happening to ocean levels over time.

A very important cut from the article is as below-(as was noted in the preceding post) but needs to be emphasized-

Impact of the lunar node cycle on coastal and marine processes
The lunar node cycle influences coastal processes that are regulated or modulated by tides. Because of the long periodicity, the influence of the lunar node cycle is easily confused with a change in long term trends.

And no one is going to be flooded out within 100 years, period.

Its still the Chicken Little Syndrome

[Edited on 4-7-2024 by Cliffy]

A question about global differences in sea level...

AKgringo - 4-7-2024 at 08:59 AM

If sea level rises as much as some theories predict, wont, the effects be greater in equatorial regions vs sub polar regions due to the centrifugal effect of the rotation of the earth?

[Edited on 4-7-2024 by AKgringo]

surfhat - 4-7-2024 at 12:02 PM

You deniers need to look beyond yourselves and your very local areas, and the planet as a whole, to see the broader picture of man's impact on the planets ability to survive what we continue to dump upon her.

How anyone can deny that certain regions are being directly impacted by our demand for fossil fuels is like putting your head in the ground and saying, don't bother telling me Mother Nature is at risk because of our negligence.

Just wait for the expected expected responses from the Usual Suspects. haha

They never miss a chance to show their ................ grrrr.

Does mankind have the ability to directly affect the climate? Anyone who denies that is a dinosaur.

For one example of when mankind, the world over, came together in a concerted effort change the climate, one only has to look back to then 80's when mankind came together and banned CFC's. The ozone hole in the southern latitudes has been mitigated because of this coming together.

For this action alone, I still hold hope for our future generations to enjoy what we have been given.

Tioloco - 4-7-2024 at 12:10 PM

Yeah, hairspray was causing the depletion of the ozone. And eliminating puffy 80's hair is what made the world a better place.

As for palm trees-
If you take a look at the globe, you will see how absurd your alarmist view is about rising tides. There is a finite amount of water on the planet. It gets redistributed in the form of rain, snow, ice and underground aquifers. Never does the total volume change. But keep on insulting everyone that disagrees with you.

Very productive discussion

surabi - 4-7-2024 at 12:50 PM

Quote: Originally posted by surfhat

You deniers need to look beyond yourselves and your very local areas, and the planet as a whole...

The thing is, the deniers really don't seem to care to look beyond themselves and their very local areas. As long as they aren't personally being negatively impacted, that other people are or will be suffering, including younger and future generations, is of no interest to them.

Most of the climate change deniers also have this attitude when it comes to almost everything else, as well.

surfhat - 4-7-2024 at 01:05 PM

One is either for supporting life on our only livable planet or they are not.

Hairspray? Really? Do try to catch up for all of our sakes and our future generations.

Palm trees on the Bay of Concepcion? Try looking a bit further for the real impacts of man caused weather changes planet wide.

The truth is out there for all, but only if you choose to inform yourself beyond your own local observed situations.

If ignored, you better believe the climate change will be coming your way, maybe not in your lifetime, but our future generations will know who to blame.

Mankind can change the future if they choose to. History has proved that. I hope mankind will reaffirm that again like they did with CFC's.

AKgringo - 4-7-2024 at 01:31 PM

Quote: Originally posted by surfhat

You deniers need to look beyond yourselves and your very local areas, and the planet as a whole

Just wait for the expected expected responses from the Usual Suspects. haha

They never miss a chance to show their ................ grrrr.

Am I the denier you are talking about? I was asking a question about variations in the sea level rise. you know...the topic of this thread!

You appear to be right about trollish responses though.

surfhat - 4-7-2024 at 01:50 PM

No, you were not the target of my ire. If you found my opinion directed personally at you, it was not my intention.

It was bringing forth a hairspray issue that inspired me to comment on this fine beautiful morning.

When mankind chose to change the climate by banning CFC's, it gave me and still gives me, hope for our future generations.

If you felt slighted, maybe consider what we can do for our future generations by changing our priorities from profiteering off of mother nature. It has happened before and can again if we choose to.

I hope all Nomads can agree on that alone, no matter which side of the spectrum we align with.

Mother Nature deserve nothing less from us.

surabi - 4-7-2024 at 02:36 PM

Quote: Originally posted by surfhat

Mankind can change the future if they choose to. History has proved that. I hope mankind will reaffirm that again like they did with CFC's.

Another thing that made it evident to what extent human activity affects the planet: During the pandemic lockdowns and reduced human activity, people working from home instead of commuting to work, doing a once a week shopping trip instead of jumping in their car every time they need a liter of milk, etc, is that worldwide pollution levels plummeted in a very short amount of time.

Cliffy - 4-7-2024 at 04:42 PM

To foot the bill for cleaning the air on a small segment of the world's population (US AND EU) when the majority of the world's population has no intent to curb any form of fossil energy use is just folly as it won't make a tinker's damn bit of difference in the overall world's atmosphere.

Secondly and maybe most important you condemn those populations in the 3rd world to a life of poverty and ill health by not promoting THEIR use of cheap energy (coal and oil). Energy builds civilizations and lengthens life expectancy where it is used.

surabi - 4-9-2024 at 07:27 PM

Not one of those people said "the world will end in ten years". If you are going to claim that someone said something, name the source for the exact quote. Your interpretation of what people say isn't of any value. And claiming someone said something they didn't in order to disparage them is called libel.

And I suggest you do a little research on coal mining regarding your notion that it "saves people from early death." The families of coal miners who die from black lung disease, COPD, and other lung diseases would beg to differ.

https://publichealth.uic.edu/news-stories/modern-coal-miners...)%2C%20and%20lung%20function%20impairment.

"Coal mining continues to be one of the most hazardous professions in our society. Even today, while the number of large-scale mining disasters and the number of deaths have certainly declined, coal miners continue to face a work environment that is inherently toxic and unhealthy. Coal miners who survive the mines walk away from their profession with significant health impairments and shorter life expectancies than most other Americans."

And no, none of your examples above are even close to the definition of "hysterical". The definition of hysterical means an inability to control one's feelings or behavior. Just because someone protests something that you don't believe in or protests in a way that you disagree with doesn't make them hysterical.

Tioloco - 4-9-2024 at 07:35 PM

Quote: Originally posted by surabi

Not one of those people said "the world will end in ten years". If you are going to claim that someone said something, name the source for the exact quote. Your interpretation of what people say isn't of any value. And claiming someone said something they didn't in order to disparage them is called libel.

And I suggest you do a little research on coal mining regarding your notion that it "saves people from early death." The families of coal miners who die from black lung disease, COPD, and other lung diseases would beg to differ.

https://publichealth.uic.edu/news-stories/modern-coal-miners...)%2C%20and%20lung%20function%20impairment.

"Coal mining continues to be one of the most hazardous professions in our society. Even today, while the number of large-scale mining disasters and the number of deaths have certainly declined, coal miners continue to face a work environment that is inherently toxic and unhealthy. Coal miners who survive the mines walk away from their profession with significant health impairments and shorter life expectancies than most other Americans."

And no, none of your examples above are even close to the definition of "hysterical". The definition of hysterical means an inability to control one's feelings or behavior. Just because someone protests something that you don't believe in or protests in a way that you disagree with doesn't make them hysterical.

but you can't control your feelings.... funny

caj13 - 5-4-2024 at 09:19 AM

I just stopped by here for my weekly fix of Ignorant proclamations by willfully uneducated individuals trying to justify their personal agendas - and right on que - heres Cliffy
"Obviously you didn't comprehend what I was saying about coal-
The focus was on cheap electricity and only fossil fuels can deliver that"

really cliffy - there's this brand new thing called google - and a skilled operator can actually use it to find information - stuff like:

For the last 13 to 15 years, renewable power generation costs from solar and wind power have been falling. Between 2010 and 2022, solar and wind power became cost-competitive with fossil fuels even without financial support. The global weighted average cost of electricity from solar PV fell by 89 per cent to USD 0.049/kWh, almost one-third less than the cheapest fossil fuel globally. For onshore wind the fall was 69 per cent to USD 0.033/kWh in 2022, slightly less than half that of the cheapest fossil fuel-fired option in 2022.

see - easy to find - but hard to swallow eh Cliffy - don't you just hate it when actual facts get in the way of your fantasy narrative!

Tioloco - 5-4-2024 at 09:22 AM

Quote: Originally posted by caj13

I just stopped by here for my weekly fix of Ignorant proclamations by willfully uneducated individuals trying to justify their personal agendas - and right on que - heres Cliffy
"Obviously you didn't comprehend what I was saying about coal-
The focus was on cheap electricity and only fossil fuels can deliver that"

really cliffy - there's this brand new thing called google - and a skilled operator can actually use it to find information - stuff like:

For the last 13 to 15 years, renewable power generation costs from solar and wind power have been falling. Between 2010 and 2022, solar and wind power became cost-competitive with fossil fuels even without financial support. The global weighted average cost of electricity from solar PV fell by 89 per cent to USD 0.049/kWh, almost one-third less than the cheapest fossil fuel globally. For onshore wind the fall was 69 per cent to USD 0.033/kWh in 2022, slightly less than half that of the cheapest fossil fuel-fired option in 2022.

see - easy to find - but hard to swallow eh Cliffy - don't you just hate it when actual facts get in the way of your fantasy narrative!

Your stats dont acknowledge the taxpayer subsidies that hide the real cost. NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING COST COMPETITIVE

At least be honest about it

mtgoat666 - 5-4-2024 at 01:59 PM

Base load is a misnomer,and a bit of an outdated concept. You can see the daily energy sources online, for example at cal iso
https://www.caiso.com/todaysoutlook/Pages/supply.aspx

Generation sources change with time of day-and weather.

Renewables provide a great source of energy.

RFClark - 5-4-2024 at 02:47 PM

Goat,

“Base Load” is what keeps things going at night, every night, or when the wind don’t blow or the sun shine!

You have lots of wind, solar and water. What you don’t have is enough Storage for any of them. Why you don’t is politics not engineering! Doug says no politics here!

I will point out is that the shutdown date of the much hated last nuclear generator in California has wisely been extended. That as an indication of how bad things really are glowing platitudes aside!

Cliffy - 5-4-2024 at 02:55 PM

What is cheaper to install and add to or build a distribution system-
coal or wind?

What if an impoverished country has lots of coal to burn ?
Should they just forego it and wait until they can "afford" to do solar or wind?
What about the basic low tech jobs that a coal industry could bring to an impoverished country in Africa?

Are you going to teach thousands of citizens of a country to build and install the wind turbines or solar panels or are you going outside the country for a source and workers to build the system? And then try to sell them overpriced electricity brought in by renewables because their country can't subsidize the industry?
How are you going to maintain a high tech system in an impoverished country that has trouble even keeping a small coal plant operating? A populace that doesn't even have a 4th grade education level? What do you do for them with your pontification of THEIR responsibilities to save the world? How about we bring them up to the level we enjoyed 100 years ago? Which they don't have today!

Coal can bring jobs to an impoverished country and try as we might - even though it might not be the most ideal way to generate electricity it at least raises the poverty level in that country. Or do you just want to forego the fact that life is shorter in countries that don't have cheap reliable power?

How about when the country doesn't have any base load carry capacity? Where do they start? Only have power when the wind blows or the sun shines?
Is every country around the world suitable to use high tech renewables?
Do they have the land available? Is the land suitable for either wind or solar?
How are they to carry over when the wind don't blow or the sun don't shine?

BTW Just how much does cloud cover reduce solar generation capacity? Not everywhere in the world do we see 350 days a year of bright sunshine?

Here's some counter views on the "hockey stick" climate modeling if any of the climate N-zis would even dare to view it- I doubt any will.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZWWMneHuCE

SFandH - 5-4-2024 at 03:08 PM

Base load is a misnomer,and a bit of an outdated concept. You can see the daily energy sources online, for example at cal iso
https://www.caiso.com/todaysoutlook/Pages/supply.aspx

Generation sources change with time of day-and weather.

Renewables provide a great source of energy.

Thanks, goat. That's a great website. I'm glad to see the amount of renewable energy being generated, and I'm all for more of it.

Tioloco - 5-4-2024 at 03:13 PM

What is cheaper to install and add to or build a distribution system-
coal or wind?

What if an impoverished country has lots of coal to burn ?
Should they just forego it and wait until they can "afford" to do solar or wind?
What about the basic low tech jobs that a coal industry could bring to an impoverished country in Africa?

Are you going to teach thousands of citizens of a country to build and install the wind turbines or solar panels or are you going outside the country for a source and workers to build the system? And then try to sell them overpriced electricity brought in by renewables because their country can't subsidize the industry?
How are you going to maintain a high tech system in an impoverished country that has trouble even keeping a small coal plant operating? A populace that doesn't even have a 4th grade education level? What do you do for them with your pontification of THEIR responsibilities to save the world? How about we bring them up to the level we enjoyed 100 years ago? Which they don't have today!

Coal can bring jobs to an impoverished country and try as we might - even though it might not be the most ideal way to generate electricity it at least raises the poverty level in that country. Or do you just want to forego the fact that life is shorter in countries that don't have cheap reliable power?

How about when the country doesn't have any base load carry capacity? Where do they start? Only have power when the wind blows or the sun shines?
Is every country around the world suitable to use high tech renewables?
Do they have the land available? Is the land suitable for either wind or solar?
How are they to carry over when the wind don't blow or the sun don't shine?

BTW Just how much does cloud cover reduce solar generation capacity? Not everywhere in the world do we see 350 days a year of bright sunshine?

Here's some counter views on the "hockey stick" climate modeling if any of the climate N-zis would even dare to view it- I doubt any will.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZWWMneHuCE

Interesting link

mtgoat666 - 5-4-2024 at 03:22 PM

You guys dont even know the words. Load is demand, not generation. Perhaps you guys mean base load generation when you fantasize about fossil fuel power plants rotating at 2 in the morning, eh? :lol:

[Edited on 5-4-2024 by mtgoat666]

RFClark - 5-4-2024 at 05:40 PM

Yes goat,

Base load is what your generating, transmission and Storage have to carry.

So if it’s all Rosy Scenarios why suddenly extend the life of the hated nuclear plant?

JZ - 5-5-2024 at 07:59 PM

Welp, no more coffee for you! Sure glad I'm not a coffee drinker.

Click the link to watch the video of the guy saying this.
https://x.com/wideawake_media/status/1786328788155998433

[Edited on 5-6-2024 by JZ]

caj13 - 5-6-2024 at 09:20 AM

Quote: Originally posted by Tioloco

! [/rquote]

Your stats dont acknowledge the taxpayer subsidies that hide the real cost. NOT EVEN CLOSE TO BEING COST COMPETITIVE

At least be honest about it

You actually have a citation for that Tio - or do you just make up stuff like Cliffy and spout right wing rhetoric without any facts. I provided facts - your comments about those - just plain wrong - and all you would have to do is actually read it to know you were wrong!

caj13 - 5-6-2024 at 09:28 AM

and for you yahoos like cliffy still spouting the tired old and ridiculously wrong - "cheaper to build fossil fuel powerplants and distribution - where did that nonsense come from? Don't you think if it were cheaper the power companies would be all over that - but here in the USA - All of the increases in power production are renewables - all of em - because they are much cheaper per KW hr.

For god sakes - one of you - any one of you - save yourselves from the embarrassment of being Willfully ignorant - just take the 2 minutes to google some of the supposed facts you are vomiting out - you'll find out almost immediately that you are completely wrong!

PaulW - 5-6-2024 at 09:37 AM

Unfortunately what we have is existing power and it costs more to go with with new technology than to live with the old stuff.
The more renewable percentage my power company uses the higher my rates go.

“But it was the best butter!” MIT report on increased global warming due to cleaner air

RFClark - 5-6-2024 at 11:15 AM

“Usually when we talk about climate change, the focus is squarely on the role that greenhouse-gas emissions play in driving up global temperatures, and rightly so. But another important, less-known phenomenon is also heating up the planet: reductions in other types of pollution.

In particular, the world’s power plants, factories, and ships are pumping much less sulfur dioxide into the air, thanks to an increasingly strict set of global pollution regulations. Sulfur dioxide creates aerosol particles in the atmosphere that can directly reflect sunlight back into space or act as the “condensation nuclei” around which cloud droplets form. More or thicker clouds, in turn, also cast away more sunlight. So when we clean up pollution, we also ease this cooling effect.”

https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/04/11/1091087/the-inad...

surabi - 5-6-2024 at 11:53 AM

Quote: Originally posted by caj13

and for you yahoos like cliffy still spouting the tired old and ridiculously wrong - "cheaper to build fossil fuel powerplants and distribution - where did that nonsense come from? Don't you think if it were cheaper the power companies would be all over that - but here in the USA - All of the increases in power production are renewables - all of em - because they are much cheaper per KW hr.

For god sakes - one of you - any one of you - save yourselves from the embarrassment of being Willfully ignorant - just take the 2 minutes to google some of the supposed facts you are vomiting out - you'll find out almost immediately that you are completely wrong!

These fossil fuel promoters don't understand or acknowledge the concept of "cheaper" not being an in-the-moment factor, anyway, when it comes to their denial.

If you buy a "cheap" tool that breaks within 6 months, is it "cheaper" than buying a tool that costs twice as much initially, but lasts 10 times as long?

It's "cheaper" to buy and eat white Bimbo bread and other nutritionless food, but what are the health costs of eating crap food in the long run?

Also, Cliffy seems to think that just because someone lives in an impoverished country and working in a coal mine means they have a job, it's okay for them to suffer the health hazards and shortened life span resulting from that occupation.

Everyone wants clean air to breathe, even the "impoverished".

RFClark - 5-6-2024 at 12:28 PM

In addition to Cliffy, I think people who work often at dangerous demanding jobs generally live longer than those who don’t work because there is no work and starve to death.

The same is true for people who might die sooner because of air pollution but nowhere as soon as they will die from the increased heat or drown because of the sea level rise caused by clear air temperature increases. (38+% of the total increase!)

Cliffy - 5-6-2024 at 06:02 PM

What is being ignored is that African countries have to build a Base Load system BEFORE they can even think of renewables.

Can't run a country on just renewables!

If you don't have some sort of dino juice power for the base load you don't have a grid. The sun goes down and the wind dies at night

The price of mining coal in the developed countries is far higher than it would be on the African continent due to lower POLITICAL restrictions.

And it would put people who have no job in the labor market EVEN if it is in job with hazards the we in the West can pontificate about.

People who have nothing make choices too. Like trying to feed their family and themselves. We in the West made the same choices as we were building a nation.

Now that WE have ubiquitous POWER we can tell the world how THEY must operate in their country?
Its reminiscent of Marie Antoinette - "Let them eat cake!"

They sell mangos on the street for 10 for a penny just to survive and you want them to invest in high tech expensive renewables that they have NO way of keeping in operating status with governments that are corrupt and broke financially? Sounds like a GREAT plan.

I think I read that the Artic sea ice has set a record this year for a high amount? I guess when that melts we'll finally see the tree under water?

As I mentioned before- "facts" on the environment seem to be only from algorithms and algorithms are "massaged" to get the outcome wanted as was evident in the last video posted that I'm sure my detractors did not even open. Closed minds are a lost sole.

Lets see we are now up to about 400 retracted papers on COVID
And that was "The Science" 3 years ago!
Skeptic's then were pilloried bit of course there are those who think we should shut down and wear masks still today.

I wonder how many retractions we'll see on the environment?
There are only 2 hockey sticks that are real-
One is used in the NHL
And the other was on tail of every Eastern Airlines airplane.

Again all the climate N&zis do is pontificate without offering real solutions to real problems from the stance they take.
Address the problems noted rather than bloviate We're listening.

mtgoat666 - 5-6-2024 at 06:50 PM

They sell mangos on the street for 10 for a penny just to survive…

Hey, where can i buy mangos for 10 for a penny? I need to shop there!

surabi - 5-6-2024 at 07:41 PM

Cliffy likes to blather on pretending he is knowledgeable. I'm sure he's never seen anyone selllng 10 mangoes for a penny.

Again all the climate N&zis do is pontificate without offering real solutions to real problems from the stance they take.
Address the problems noted rather than bloviate We're listening.

What problems, Cliffy? You keep telling us there is no climate change problem because "the climate has always changed". And helpfully tell us the sun doesn't shine at night, just in case someone wasn't aware of that. (Actually it does in the Arctic part of the year)

All you ever do is deny the problem, and give reasons why any and all proposed solutions won't work. Your "solutions" are to maintain the status quo.

Tioloco - 5-6-2024 at 08:32 PM

The status quo is fine. More fossil fuels and nuclear fuel than we need for over 100 years. Panic is not needed. But panic does create political power. Carry on.

RFClark - 5-6-2024 at 09:16 PM

Dear ignorant and Rude,

You don’t know Mangos!

We have so many lemon sized Mangos here in BCS that when they ripen they don’t cost a penny. They are free!

surabi - 5-6-2024 at 09:34 PM

You completely missed the point, as is often the case.

I live in a neighborhood filled with mango trees, several different varieties. In mango season I can fill a shopping bag with mangoes in about 2 minutes. There are thousands just rotting on the ground.

I cut them up and put them in freezer bags in the freezer to use in non-mango season, and make jars of mango jam.

RFClark - 5-7-2024 at 06:14 AM

Well, if Cliffy visited Todos Santos he has seen people on street corners selling mangos for next to nothing!

You, on the other hand, have ignored the point that the research finally being made public shows that the changes made to “improve” the climate have actually made it worse not better by accelerating the temperature increases!

Something far more important then the price of Mangos!

bajaric - 5-7-2024 at 06:28 AM

Will never forget the first time I experienced a ripe mango picked off the tree, in Cabo San Lucas back in the 80's. Been hooked on mangos ever since. Unfortunately, the mangos sold in the US are picked green, no comparison.

So here is something to add to the polite discussion of climate change here on Baja Nomad. When a hydrocarbon is oxidized (burned) the combustion by products include not only carbon dioxide, but also water vapor. So for all the gazillion tons of oil and coal that have been burned since the industrial revolution about half of that tonnage is water vapor that has been released into the atmosphere. And thank goodness. Without the protective greenhouse effect of water in the atmosphere the median temperature would be fifty degrees lower, and the surface of the earth would be covered in ice.

I don't think the average person understands that burning something makes water. It is counter intuitive. But it does. That is why when a car is started cold sometimes water drips out of the exhaust pipe; the water vapor hits the cold exhaust system and it condenses into liquid water. So by extension burning coal and oil will increase the humidity. This simple, self-evident fact has been completely ignored by the mainstream media.

[Edited on 5-7-2024 by bajaric]

SFandH - 5-7-2024 at 09:00 AM

Quote: Originally posted by bajaric

So for all the gazillion tons of oil and coal that have been burned since the industrial revolution about half of that tonnage is water vapor that has been released into the atmosphere.

Oh my God! One-half of a "gazillion tons" is water vapor from hydrocarbon combustion. Amazing!

Are you sure it's "about half" the tonnage?

Is it significant compared to the bazillion tons of water vapor in the atmosphere?

I doubt it.

Do you have any pertinent numbers?

This is a scientific debate, after all.

[Edited on 5-7-2024 by SFandH]

RFClark - 5-7-2024 at 09:29 AM

Yes,

There is actually about 3 times the amount of water underground than there is in all the ocean. In fact there is a waterhole in Death Vally that ofter has waves when earthquakes occur thousands of miles away from it.
Anytime you burn anything with hydrogen in it you produce yet more water.

Tioloco - 5-7-2024 at 10:57 AM

Yes,

There is actually about 3 times the amount of water underground than there is in all the ocean. In fact there is a waterhole in Death Vally that ofter has waves when earthquakes occur thousands of miles away from it.
Anytime you burn anything with hydrogen in it you produce yet more water.

And the lefties have been brainwashed to believe that the USA burning fossil fuels will kill the planet.
They love giving their freedoms away to a group of "Do as I say, not as I do" politicians.

RFClark - 5-7-2024 at 11:15 AM

I’m unsure if Doug will consider this “Politics” or not but!

When the discussion turns to sharing, generating equitable outcomes, social justice and the like it’s best to remember the following.

When everybody own or shares something or everything, someone needs to take charge of whatever that is on behalf of everybody! Being that person or a part of that group is obviously the best place to be!

In other times that was called “the patronage system”!

bajaric - 5-7-2024 at 11:23 AM

Allright, let's try and quantify the amount of water released to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels since the 1800's.

Here is the stoichiometry for the combustion of pentane:

C5H12 + 8O2 -> 5CO2 + 6H2O

Based on their molecular weights, the combustion products are roughly 57 percent CO2 and 43 percent H20 by weight. Of course, on the surface of the earth a gas does not weigh anything, but if you froze them into a solid the weights of the combustion products are roughly half carbon dioxide and half water.

The hydrocarbons in coal and oil have a more complex molecular formula but the ratio of carbon to hydrogen is similar to that of pentane. So as a ballpark figure when fossil fuels are burned the byproducts are about half CO2 and half H20.

Next, how much oil and gas has been burned since 1850? This is a little tricky, because fossil fuel combustion is expressed in terawatt hours. It takes 120,000 tons of coal to produce one terawatt hour.
Here are terawatt hours produced by burning fossil fuels starting in 1950 when the combustion of fossil fuels really started to take off:
1950 20,139
1960 31,139
1970 52,000 (muscle cars lol)
1980 70,620
1990 83,064
2000 94,407
2020 136,000

Prior to 1950 the burning of fossil fuels was not as widely practiced. Many people still burned wood for heat. So the carbon emitted from burning oil and coal in some sense only replaced carbon from burning wood. It was not until the era of mega industrialization that things really started to heat up!

So say an average of 68,000 terawatt hours per year for the last 70 years. That equals 8,160,000,000 tons of coal (or oil equivalent), or 4,060,000,000 tons water released to the atmosphere since 1950, know colloquially as a "gazillion" if I got the math right.

As to whether or not the release of 8 billion tons of carbon dioxide and water to the atmosphere in the last 70 years will change the climate, I really don't know. There are arguments on both sides. To me it is just interesting that everyone is focused on Carbon Dioxide and ignores the water that goes up in the atmosphere along with the CO2. CO2 is like the bogeyman, this mysterious thing that somehow sinister and negative, while the release of water, another greenhouse gas, is not even brought into the conversation.

Feels kind of sticky today...

[Edited on 5-7-2024 by bajaric]

David K - 5-7-2024 at 11:40 AM

Quote:

Prior to 1950 the burning of fossil fuels was not as widely practiced.

Ric, what about the factories, the industrial age, coal (and maybe some gas and oil) burning from the late 1800s on...?

bajaric - 5-7-2024 at 11:54 AM

Yes. Steam engines, factories, the industrial revolution. But the chart I was looking at, here

https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels

shows that the burning of fossil fuels really did not show a massive increase until well into the 1900's. This was the period when the electrical grid reached most of the population in developed countries as well as population growth due to the discovery of antibiotics etc.

But hey look on the bright side maybe if it gets really tropical and humid we can grow some decent mangos around here --

[Edited on 5-7-2024 by bajaric]

RFClark - 5-7-2024 at 11:58 AM

Guys,

You’re not remembering that cellulose (trees, plants, ect) is a hydrocarbon C6 H10 O5 - forest fires burn hydrocarbons, cave people burned hydrocarbons. It’s a part of a complicated cycle that goes back to the earth’s early days.

SFandH - 5-7-2024 at 12:32 PM

Quote: Originally posted by bajaric

As to whether or not the release of 8 billion tons of carbon dioxide and water to the atmosphere in the last 70 years will change the climate, I really don't know.

Emphasis added.

OK. In a previous post you said:

Quote: Originally posted by bajaric

So for all the gazillion tons of oil and coal that have been burned since the industrial revolution about half of that tonnage is water vapor that has been released into the atmosphere. And thank goodness. Without the protective greenhouse effect of water in the atmosphere the median temperature would be fifty degrees lower, and the surface of the earth would be covered in ice.

Emphasis added.

You said "thank goodness" about the burning of oil and coal. That's an unusual comment when considering its effect on climate and implies you knew how the atmosphere is affected.

[Edited on 5-7-2024 by SFandH]

surabi - 5-7-2024 at 01:33 PM