Expert prognosis for the planet

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by soundman98

is this where we revolt against them taking away our gas fired ovens?

Meh, I've never liked gas stoves frankly. We have natural gas at our house but when we remodeled we chose an electric range.

[DrinkenBeeRZ]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

You are confusing local climate to average global climate (see attached picture and study below).

What caused this local warming trend and subsequent cooling? See the following links:

https://virtuallaboratory.colorado.e...20collapse.pdf

https://news.utexas.edu/2010/11/11/m...not-so-random/


The average sea level rise was already discussed below, but if you want to talk about local sea depth in that area then read the following journal article. That area of the Netherlands is characterized by a very flat and low sea depth, and like sand dunes changing with wind and altering the landscape of a desert, that area has seen tidal changes and seafloor changes, which are highlighted extensively in the following study:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journ...B5B650E65D30A#

https://www.ft86club.com/forums/show...&postcount=486



Humans have migrated to find food and water or escape war or tensions or because they were displaced from natural disasters like volcanoes, floods, droughts, etc. They may have migrated over decades, centuries or millennia due to local climate change too or during other periods that were far less globally stable than what we have seen up until recent. You need to try to say and show more than just saying, 'people have migrated in the past due to the climate, thus abrupt climate change happens naturally, and therefore, anthropomorphic climate change doesn't exist.' Scientists are saying we are causing the changes we are seeing now. Scientists are using science to describe the climate of the past, which you are using against them to say, 'they know about the past, but don't understand the present or future.' Doesn't that seem a little odd to you that you trust the climate science of the past, but you don't trust the science talking about the climate of the present?





Or what high schoolers or middle schoolers can put together. A superficial understanding of the science is all that is necessary to explain what scientists are demonstrating related to the misconceptions you are presenting. You clearly haven't reviewed this entire thread because your talking points have been discussed. You aren't offering anything new.





This is false. Climate models that are being used to predict the future are verified by trying to model the past. In case that is confusing, let me explain. Scientists put in data from the present and from recent trends to model the future. They verify the validity of their models by putting in data from the past, and low behold, their models correctly correlate to past measurements. Specifically, if they feed in data on average CO2, solar radiation, volcanic activity, plant profiles, etc. and input all this data into their models, the models predict average global surface temperatures accurately, so then they apply them to current data, and we get future predictions.

Besides this fact, Captain Snooze's article is highlighting the obviousness of the future: there is a train running down a track, and it has a massive amount of inertia, so it is going to be hard to stop or divert without a lot of work, so it is no surprise where it is going to go when very little effort is trying to stop it. There might be a lot of talk about how to stop it and a lot of research about how to stop it, and some people have even started to try to stop it, but a few people aren't going to stop a huge train. The climate models have a clear trend line, and we have seen what impact current changes are doing and where we are headed, and the models are predicting in nine years we will be passing 1.5C. I guess we will see if they are right in nine years.

YouTube education at its finest. Maybe start off with “I want to believe!” next time. The climate models have less to do with science than weather forecasting. But, they may get the latter closer to perfect someday since at least it doesn’t rely I want to be scientists playing big boy scientist on a computer.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by soundman98

is this where we revolt against them taking away our gas fired ovens?

Chefs and my wife prefer gas for better cooking, but I can’t tell the difference, except I like the flat electric stove surfaces for easy cleaning.

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Meh, I've never liked gas stoves frankly. We have natural gas at our house but when we remodeled we chose and electric range.

my only preference to gas is because my furnace and water heater are gas. my winter electric/gas bill is around $100. summer with a/c use, it's closer to $200-250.

otherwise, i really just can't care enough to care.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by DrinkenBeeRZ

YouTube education at its finest. Maybe start off with “I want to believe!” next time. The climate models have less to do with science than weather forecasting. But, they may get the latter closer to perfect someday since at least it doesn’t rely I want to be scientists playing big boy scientist on a computer.

Do you have anything substantial to contribute in rebuttal besides some ad hominem statements?

There are ways to test tools to see if they have the power to make accurate predictions. Climate models, regardless of where they were derived from, have been shown to have predictive powers. Scientists can insert data from the past and the models have correctly predicted warming and cooling trends. Once they have models that are reliable, they can apply current data into the models to predict the future. It is the best we can do because we don’t have a crystal ball to read into the future.

Regardless, the world is simultaneously moving forward, while doing so in a sluggish way, so we can just wait and see what happens. We will mitigate some effects, but the warming trend will probably continue until we make serious strides. Because people “want to believe” it is not greenhouse gas emissions, even if we do see a continuous correlation with emissions and warming, those who are in denial will always say it is natural. What criteria would make you convinced? Why don’t we start from there, so we know what would be convincing evidence for you?

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by soundman98

my only preference to gas is because my furnace and water heater are gas. my winter electric/gas bill is around $100. summer with a/c use, it's closer to $200-250.

otherwise, i really just can't care enough to care.

It’s a double edged sword. Electricity is expensive, especially when we are building electric infrastructure, but gas like oil will have a finite future, so prices will eventually flip, so we can wait, or we can start preparing.

[x808drifter]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Chefs and my wife prefer gas for better cooking, but I can’t tell the difference, except I like the flat electric stove surfaces for easy cleaning.

She is definitely a keeper then.
Gas is better at transferring heat quickly. It's also easer to maintain temp with one.
But Glass top electrics and conductions are so easy to clean.

[Captain Snooze]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Chefs and my wife prefer gas for better cooking, but I can’t tell the difference, except I like the flat electric stove surfaces for easy cleaning.

Originally Posted by x808drifter

Gas is better at transferring heat quickly. It's also easer to maintain temp with one.

"The big surprise in one new study, conducted by environmental scientists at Stanford University, was the amount of unburned gas that leaks into kitchens when a stove is off. They found that more than three quarters of methane that escapes from a stove does so when it is not in use, most likely through imperfect pipe fittings. Only one out of 53 stoves measured for the study—and many more the team has measured since—did not leak when turned off, says Rob Jackson, senior author of the study. Methane is not toxic, but it is a potent greenhouse gas. With 40 million gas stoves across the country, Jackson and his co-authors estimate that the heat-trapping potential of the methane they discharge annually is roughly equivalent to the carbon dioxide released by half a million gas-powered cars."
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-gas-stoves-bad-for-our-health/


"Kids’ asthma risk from cooking with gas ‘like living with a smoker’
The health risk for children from cooking with gas has been compared to that from living with a smoker.
In a report into Australia’s reliance on gas released on Thursday, the Climate Council cites research that cooking with the fossil fuel is estimated to be responsible for 12 per cent of childhood asthma.
It recommends that gas cooktops should be phased out in Victoria."
https://www.theage.com.au/national/v...05-p57p11.html

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Irace86.2.0

Chefs and my wife prefer gas for better cooking, but I can’t tell the difference, except I like the flat electric stove surfaces for easy cleaning.

Sometimes I think its a MT/AT type thing where some percentage "prefer" it because they think they are supposed to prefer it.

[Sapphireho]

California currently generates about 50% of its electricity burning natural gas.

As California mandates all electric houses, that percentage will go up. That and the electric cars.

Too funny.

[Sapphireho]

Btw, I light my smokes with my gas stove.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Sapphireho

California currently generates about 50% of its electricity burning natural gas.

As California mandates all electric houses, that percentage will go up. That and the electric cars.

Too funny.

Not really related though. The problem with gas stoves is not the cooking part but the leakage when they are off.

[Irace86.2.0]

Originally Posted by Sapphireho

California currently generates about 50% of its electricity burning natural gas.

As California mandates all electric houses, that percentage will go up. That and the electric cars.

Too funny.

Why do you say that? In all likelihood, the percentage will go down, as new homes are built in place of old homes, as new systems replace old systems, and as they incentivize early upgrades. Even if natural gas use switched from home use to electricity production, even if total use went up, the percentage will likely drop as more renewables come online faster. Remember that solar is also required on new homes.

In 2001 NG made up 55%. In 2013, NG peaked at 60%. By 2021 it was down to 48% and trending down.

[Sapphireho]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Not really related though. The problem with gas stoves is not the cooking part but the leakage when they are off.

Never had one leak. There is a terrible smell to natural gas. Can't miss even the smallest amount.