"But Global Warming is a HOAX!!!"

The only problem with moving people to area like Greenland, Northern Canada, Northern Russia and Antarctica is that there is no soil there.

People imagine that we can all move into peat bogs and breath the Carbon Dioxide and Methane that those bogs emit as they thaw, as easily as you can move from one house to another.

Sadly, this is not the case.

People live in the good places now, if the good places go away, really bad things happen.

It does indeed take a lot longer for tundra to develop a decent topsoil than it does for existing topsoil to turn to dust and blow away. There may be ways for the process to be artificially speeded up, but they will probably be expensive.
 
It does indeed take a lot longer for tundra to develop a decent topsoil than it does for existing topsoil to turn to dust and blow away. There may be ways for the process to be artificially speeded up, but they will probably be expensive.

I believe I saw somewhere that warming those areas will release even more greenhouse gases. And there's a chance there's some really nasty stuff in them. Like viruses.
 
The only problem with moving people to area like Greenland, Northern Canada, Northern Russia and Antarctica is that there is no soil there.

People imagine that we can all move into peat bogs and breath the Carbon Dioxide and Methane that those bogs emit as they thaw, as easily as you can move from one house to another.

Sadly, this is not the case.

People live in the good places now, if the good places go away, really bad things happen.

Quite apart from the fact that I mentioned that, you are aware I was attempting sarcasm there right?
 
It does indeed take a lot longer for tundra to develop a decent topsoil than it does for existing topsoil to turn to dust and blow away. There may be ways for the process to be artificially speeded up, but they will probably be expensive.


Methods to improve soil are being investigated: Agriculture in Greenland – possibilities and needs for future development and research (Natur.gl, November 2019)
Chapter 1 - Agricultural fields and soils in Southern Greenland: Properties and Possibilities
 
Concrete is a tricky one because the chemical reaction that hardens concrete itself releases considerable amounts of CO2. Even taking energy entirely out of the equation concrete generates greenhouse gases.

As a coincidence, a colleague of mine left the company to go work at a start up trying to develop a concrete technology that doesn't release CO2 when curing, instead producing some other, non-gaseous byproduct. No idea how well it's going.

Not sure if anyone has corrected this, couldn't see with a quick look.

Carbon dioxide is released during the production of cement (reduction of calcium carbonate to calcium oxide), carbon dioxide is actually absorbed by concrete.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scien...2 (carbon dioxide,ease CO2 permeates concrete.

In theory concrete could be used as a carbon capture technology in practice it is difficult to do this since there are carbon costs in using concrete which captures carbon dioxide.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-21148-w
 
This morning's forecast in Phoenix.

[IMGW=900]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1474&pictureid=13611[/IMGW]
 
People who like eating food are not the problem. The people who like other people to be able to eat only ****** cheap food are. So are the people who won't pay them enough be able to afford anything other than ****** cheap food, and the people whose money is invested in fossil fuels.

Those people are also the ones complaining the loudest. Ordinary people don't have much of a say about how their food is produced, but the manufacturers always blame them: 'I would love to go organic and let my chickens and pigs to live long and fulfilling lives, but the customers won't pay me to do so. They, the consumers, force me to torture the chickens and produce food full of pesticides and other poison!'

On Sunday Mrs Don and I were supplying music for a "Save the Wye" event in Monmouth. The River Wye faces a number of challenges like low and warm water (it's hotter and drier than decades ago) and sewage discharges from water companies but the biggest single issue appears to be effluent from industrial chicken farms that have sprung up in the Wye Valley.

A lot of effort has gone into criticising the farmers and agribusinesses but the Great British consumer is IMO also at fault for their demand for cheap chicken and cheap eggs. Chicken used to be a comparatively rare treat, even as recently as 50 years ago. These days it seems to be the default meat and many British consumers have meat in two or three meals a day.
 
Not sure if anyone has corrected this, couldn't see with a quick look.

Carbon dioxide is released during the production of cement (reduction of calcium carbonate to calcium oxide), carbon dioxide is actually absorbed by concrete.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scien...2 (carbon dioxide,ease CO2 permeates concrete.

In theory concrete could be used as a carbon capture technology in practice it is difficult to do this since there are carbon costs in using concrete which captures carbon dioxide.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-21148-w

These are proposed ways of making concrete less of a CO2 emitter, and it's correct that cement production (which is necessary for concrete) is the actual part of the process that releases the most CO2, but as concrete is used today is a huge emitter.
 
Supposed to hit 104 here Friday. 105 next Tuesday. All time record is 107. Lows in the mid 70's. I'm used to having a cup of coffee on my back porch before work in the summer and it being almost too chilly to be outside :(

Its odd that the whole southwest isn't on fire, but its because we had a great year for snowpack.

Its not really the temps that are THAT concerning its how long they are lasting. I've never seen 100+ for several weeks on end.
 
Last edited:
This morning's forecast in Phoenix.

[IMGW=900]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1474&pictureid=13611[/IMGW]

If they started using degC, it would be much lower. Problem solved.
 
People who like eating food are not the problem. The people who like other people to be able to eat only ****** cheap food are. So are the people who won't pay them enough be able to afford anything other than ****** cheap food, and the people whose money is invested in fossil fuels.

Those people are also the ones complaining the loudest. Ordinary people don't have much of a say about how their food is produced, but the manufacturers always blame them: 'I would love to go organic and let my chickens and pigs to live long and fulfilling lives, but the customers won't pay me to do so. They, the consumers, force me to torture the chickens and produce food full of pesticides and other poison!'


My cheap chicken and pasta and apples and bread come from pretty close by, and I find it hard to believe raising a wholesome happy long-lived chicken causes a lot less greenhouse emissions than a short-lived hormone-jacked one, on a per-chicken basis. If I pay more it's for better quality and variety, not lower emissions. I bet even if I paid the going rate to eat fresh salmon and raspberries all year long (I don't), I'd be getting the benefit of massive external costs borne by others who themselves couldn't afford that food.

ETA: One of my pet peeves: Cities and suburbs could lower CO2 emissions substantially by becoming more bike friendly. And on top of that, it would improve people's health considerably.


No argument there. The "we don't need a bike rack outside the office, no one bicycles to work" problem is pervasive at every level. The troublemaker employee who suffers being nearly run over in the parking lot, having their bike stolen, and getting reprimanded for chaining it to some essential decorative lamppost can eventually get the bike rack installed, but that doesn't mean it will get used by anyone else.

The real problem is, bicycling to work sucks. I've done it, for years. It's good for your health, if you don't get maimed or killed in traffic, but there's also rain, wind, heat, cold, darkness, ice, fatigue, and time. It's not fun. What it is, besides healthy (with said caveats), is cheap.

The "solution" is shortages of fossil fuels that make owning and operating a car is too expensive for most of the employed people in the area. Bicycles will have their day. But this will not be seen as progress.
 
Last edited:
This morning's forecast in Phoenix.

[IMGW=900]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1474&pictureid=13611[/IMGW]

I guess pretty much every building, every house, every flat over there has AC, right?
But, how far can AC cool down housing if the outside is close to 50° C. I guess that average Joe is not gonna have 22° C in their living room, even with AC at max, right?
 
I guess pretty much every building, every house, every flat over there has AC, right?
But, how far can AC cool down housing if the outside is close to 50° C. I guess that average Joe is not gonna have 22° C in their living room, even with AC at max, right?

Certainly, and all the cars as well. AC, of course, moves heat from the cooled space to the outside, at less than 100% efficiency, so is actually making the outdoors marginally warmer. And of course, it consumes electricity which I suspect comes mostly from coal in that area.
 
Certainly, and all the cars as well. AC, of course, moves heat from the cooled space to the outside, at less than 100% efficiency, so is actually making the outdoors marginally warmer. And of course, it consumes electricity which I suspect comes mostly from coal in that area.

No.

In 2022, 99% of Arizona's total electricity net generation was provided from 6 sources: natural gas (42%); nuclear power (29%); coal (12%); solar energy (10%); hydroelectric power (5%): and wind (1%). Biomass, hydroelectric pumped storage, and petroleum, supplied the rest.

Thats the state as a whole, not metro Phoenix. But, metro Phoenix is 2 thirds of Arizona's entire population ,so it can't be too far off. Arizona should be moving to solar; I mean almost no where on earth where there is significant population is better for solar.

ETA: forgot the linky https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=AZ#:~:text=In 2022, 99% of Arizona's,%): and wind (1%).
 
Last edited:
My question remains: What is the typical average Joe living room temp in such conditions with standard AC and outside temps between 45° to 50° C, over a period of days?
 
No.

In 2022, 99% of Arizona's total electricity net generation was provided from 6 sources: natural gas (42%); nuclear power (29%); coal (12%); solar energy (10%); hydroelectric power (5%): and wind (1%). Biomass, hydroelectric pumped storage, and petroleum, supplied the rest.

Thats the state as a whole, not metro Phoenix. But, metro Phoenix is 2 thirds of Arizona's entire population ,so it can't be too far off. Arizona should be moving to solar; I mean almost no where on earth where there is significant population is better for solar.

ETA: forgot the linky https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=AZ#:~:text=In 2022, 99% of Arizona's,%): and wind (1%).

Thanks for doing the research; I was feeling lazy. But still 54% fossil fuel.
 
My question remains: What is the typical average Joe living room temp in such conditions with standard AC and outside temps between 45° to 50° C, over a period of days?

I typically set my AC to 32 during the day and 31 at night. That is actually quite comfortable as long as the humidity is low. The local utility has a plan where 4PM-7PM are peak rates, so typically I will crank the AC up a bit at 3:30 and try to coast for those three hours. By 7:00 it's probably up to 37, and it will take about an hour to get down to 32 or so. I am fortunate that my house is block construction.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom