Global Warming Thread

[mikeylikey]

Broadly self-actualized human beings who don't HAVE to do anything, so generally do things that they want. I believe there is a shockingly small percentage of people who will Jeff it up, given the chance.

This, and those people already aren't exactly major contributors to society.

[aurelius]

This, and those people already aren't exactly major contributors to society.

As someone that just played through the entire Mass Effect LE trilogy, I take offense to this.

[mbasic]

birth rate tanking in US

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsrr/vsrr012-508.pdf


The charts are interesting. You can see around 2007/08-ish the rate declining.
A - takes a while to bake a babby in womb-haver's tummy.
B - planning to a have a baby takes a little longer.

I'm sure the little hiccup in the economy back then had something to do with that.
I guess the trend back upwards around 2014, was some pent up demand being released from that .... but its still crazy to me that that would reverse itself to that degree.

[KyleSchuant]

It happens in shitty economic times. Governments and all that can fiddle with the figures to make things look good, but people know.

[hsilman]

It happens in shitty economic times. Governments and all that can fiddle with the figures to make things look good, but people know.

You're saying it was a economically shitty time in the USA from 1990-1997?

[mbasic]

It happens in shitty economic times. Governments and all that can fiddle with the figures to make things look good, but people know.

You're saying it was a economically shitty time in the USA from 1990-1997?

If you are referring to the chart in the paper the shows the birth-rate declining from 1990-97 .... I would say, yeah around here it was shitty until about 93 or 94. And it would take some longer period of economic prosperity to make a normal person feel good about getting married, save some coin up, starting a family, and then the whole process of baby-making is ~10 months before we tallyup a babby on the chalk board .... so yeah, its not going to track lock step.

[mbasic]

Has anyone anything to say about this?

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/mila ... s-climate/

Several other projects and studies have also upheld the validity of Milankovitch’s work, including research using data from ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica that has provided strong evidence of Milankovitch cycles going back many hundreds of thousands of years. In addition, his work has been embraced by the National Research Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

Scientific research to better understand the mechanisms that cause changes in Earth’s rotation and how specifically Milankovitch cycles combine to affect climate is ongoing. But the theory that they drive the timing of glacial-interglacial cycles is well accepted.

I don't think we were burning that much fossil fuels in those previous 4 peaks? Does s.korea celebrate thanksgiving?

----------------------------------

I'm open to this being true^ , and the main reason for global warming climate change.
But, my opinion on the matter is we don't know for sure, and should still be reducing fossil fuels from a waste/finite resource point of view.

....and we should still be preparing for adaptations to climate change.
#1- we don't know if even reducing carbon emissions can be done to have a sizable effect.
#2- what if other factors besides greenhouse gases are the main culprit.
#3- looking at those peaks in that graph ... we are going to be in the hot zone for quite a while

....we better ration fuel, water, etc .... with the global population getting too big. Prepare to grow oranges in Alaska, etc.

[aurelius]

Has anyone anything to say about this?

https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/mila ... s-climate/

Yikes. This is conflating SO MUCH. If you click the link you posted there is another link that explains why the Milankovitch cycles (glacial-interglacial cycles) DO NOT explain the current climate warming from the same source.

https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2949/why- ... t-warming/

This is how people cherry pick information to support their narrative. You ignored the giant link that states Why Milankovitch Cycles Can’t Explain Earth’s Current Warming and then jumped to a conclusion the article you posted does not even make. Why are you so desperate to ignore decades of scientific analysis and research that clearly demonstrates anthropomorphic climate change for ANY explanation that has the appearance of disputing that?

Honestly, just think about it for 5 seconds. If there was a smoking gun explanation on why the current global warming crisis is occurring that is NOT man-made that has been known since the 1950's, do you not think Fox News would not be blasting it 24/7?

[mbasic]

Just those peaks on the M-cycle-charts are quite stunning, and might be the huge elephant in the room compared to the "heating" that's been going on since the 1950's. (global warming from man interfering with atmospheric carbon might do back further than that IMO )

It may not matter if we all drive Teslas (which is a joke btw), or every new home has a solar roof top (another one).

We better figure out how to grow crops ...or "do agriculture" ... in different/varied climates or environments.

------------------------

To be clear, I am quite anti-fossil-fuels and pro-GHG-reducing-measures.

I came across those icesheeting / global-temperature charts over the last 500K years charts via orbit cycles ... and only quickly googled/linked the NASA article to legitimize my post with all you pro-space-race-Mars-is-so-cool people (because NASA would be considered a gate keeper of the The Science). I didn't even see the blurb in the NASA article why M-cycles doesn't explain the current short term heating cycle....lolz.

I guess that 2nd article that answers my own questions a bit.
Actually, maybe if we can hang on for a few more centuries, to the downslope side of the current M-cycle we just might make it.
"In fact, NASA satellite observations show that over the last 40 years, solar radiation has actually decreased somewhat."

Either way, I don't hear much in the way of the M-cycles....

-----------------------

oh, an this goes here ....

[mbasic]

Big glacier thing:

[Allentown]

Not sure if this is where to put this, but I thought we had a WTFisupwithTexas thread that I couldn't find, so...
WTF is up with Texas?
Why don't they just put solar panels on parking lots or something? It's May and their power grid is already dead from heat?

[hector]

Not sure if this is where to put this, but I thought we had a WTFisupwithTexas thread that I couldn't find, so...
WTF is up with Texas?
Why don't they just put solar panels on parking lots or something? It's May and their power grid is already dead from heat?

I thought the exact same thing. Makes no sense.

[aurelius]

It's May and their power grid is already dead from heat?

Texas essentially completely privatized the power grid with a focus on natural gas. Predicatably the private power suppliers maximized profits and did not maintain nor upgrade the grid. Contrary to Fox News opinion, the government does provide some services better than private industry.

Essentially the Texas power grid is falling apart, has no redundancy, and people have/will continue dying so that Republicans can pwn Democrats. It is what they voted for.

[mbasic]

this caught my eye:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/te ... -rcna28849

The executive asked customers to set their thermostats to 78 degrees and avoid using large appliances in the afternoon and early evening.

78? That's about what mine is set at full time, in the summer.
Occasionally I'll do 76 at night.
I've heard stories of people that keep their houses at 72. WTF, that's gotta be expensive.

A few summers ago we tolerated 82 during the day, and turning it down to 80 at night (to sleep).

[quikky]

I've heard stories of people that keep their houses at 72. WTF, that's gotta be expensive.

Depends on the energy efficiency of the AC system and the house itself. A house built with modern efficiency standards, with the right size energy efficient AC, and good windows, won't be that expensive to cool, even to 72.

[aurelius]

I've heard stories of people that keep their houses at 72. WTF, that's gotta be expensive.

Grew up in Texas. People keep the thermostats in the 68-72 range.

[5hout]

I've heard stories of people that keep their houses at 72. WTF, that's gotta be expensive.

68-69 year round baby, plus I have a window AC unit just for bedroom (although in current house don't need it much b/c the AC ducts weren't installed by a moron).

Part of this is working at home though, it's comfortable office temp. I can't wait till I get my office in the freezing cold basement.

[Culican]

this caught my eye:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/te ... -rcna28849

The executive asked customers to set their thermostats to 78 degrees and avoid using large appliances in the afternoon and early evening.

78? That's about what mine is set at full time, in the summer.
Occasionally I'll do 76 at night.
I've heard stories of people that keep their houses at 72. WTF, that's gotta be expensive.

A few summers ago we tolerated 82 during the day, and turning it down to 80 at night (to sleep).

One of my neighbors has a house the same size, floor plan, etc. as mine. SRP (the power company) screwed up and put her bill in my envelope along with mine. In July, mine was $160 and hers was over $300. I keep my thermostat at 79F - 81F during the day in the summer. I assume she is one of those 72F people.

Edit to clarify: This was a only a few years after the subdivision was built so both houses had identical AC units.

[Culican]

I've heard stories of people that keep their houses at 72. WTF, that's gotta be expensive.

Grew up in Texas. People keep the thermostats in the 68-72 range.

We have a "dry heat" in Arizona. 78F is actually very tolerable.

[mbasic]

I've heard stories of people that keep their houses at 72. WTF, that's gotta be expensive.

Depends on the energy efficiency of the AC system and the house itself. A house built with modern efficiency standards, with the right size energy efficient AC, and good windows, won't be that expensive to cool, even to 72.

I'm in Phoenix. We had a couple of spells of 110+F for SEVERAL weeks in a row a couple of summers ago (and this is not uncommon).
My house was new/built in 2003, (A/C unit was replaced in 2019) ....
...at the time it certified and energy efficient class by the power co's standards (admittedly has changed/gotten better since then).

Also, "expensive" is relative to persons income and financial status and inflationary situation.

Most of west and south texas ... and so.cal away from the coast are not much better.

See also: Global warming / climate change. Its going to get worse. Summers will get hotter, while power will cost more year by year.