261 scientists sign open letter calling for ‘deep (2025 Update)

...

I have little doubt the measurements are accurate; I have much less faith in the projections made by the models over millennia have captured all the processes to be anything other than just what they are--computer models.

In particular, and I ask as I really haven't even tried to see if it has been addressed at all, could/would their models have been able to predict the entrance into and out of the last ice age? If not, they're missing something pretty doggone significant that is far bigger than man and fossil fuels.

All the little technological niceties are nice and have value, but destroying a whole segment of the economy over it just seems, in my mind, pointless as I simply think it really wouldn't make any discernible difference anyways.

I recently posted numbers on the amount of fuel we burn and it is incredible. Burning fuel adds heat. I'm not qualified to say how much but the scientists seem to think it is quite a bit.

I don't think we have to destroy a segment of society and return to living in caves. I do think we can easily reduce the amount of fuel we use and help future generations. It won't happen overnight, just as it took us a long time to get here it will take a long time to reduce consumption.

A century ago there were larger families and the average house size was

Do we need huge SUVs to haul a bag of groceries? EVs may help in the future be we are not there yet. Probably won't be for another 20 years.

Wind and solar help, but we can easily reduce emissions with small lifestyle changes. Sensibility. I know I did dumb things in my life because it seemed a good idea at the time but now realize I could have done more with less. And still be happy.

On 2/4/2020 7:57 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: ...

...

You seem totally unaware yet of the issue that is supposedly the crux of the problem is the "greenhouse gas" effect; mostly CO2 is the supposed culprit.

If there were no waste heat but the CO2 was emitted the models would show essentially the same result; the waste heat is radiated to the black sky for the most part.

--

Burning fuel makes both heat and CO2. Stop burning as much. Simple.

And put a segment of the economy completely under, sure.

I've been in the coal fields of E KY, VA, WVA selling, installing and servicing a line of online coal analyzers. These had the ability to keep independent smaller mines open by sorting clean coal from not-so-clean such that a significant fraction of production could avoid having the extra cost of washing. That saved real jobs for real people.

For larger operations, they enhanced profitability with the same net result of maintaining operating ability that otherwise was lost.

At mine-mouth power plants, they had a similar function in being able to reduce emissions by knowing coal quality going in.

At prep plants, they loaded trains to match customer specifications.

There isn't much in those hills except coal; preventing them from being able to make a living with what has been provided is not good sense in my book.

Think long range. Same at stagecoach makers, horse shoe makers, you don't suddenly stop and put them out of work. Times change, industries change, people adapt. Same as they have for centuries.

Biden is going to give them all jobs as coders too.

I understand Shadow Inc., the company that developed the app used in the Iowa caucus, is looking for a few good coders.

Yes, times change. In a global economy driven by consumption it will be hard to pull the plug. I understand a Superbowl ad costs about 13 million to hawk a product most people didn't need until the TV told them they did.

Do you think people will adapt to what is termed a lower standard of living without a fight? We needs our weaves!

Good luck with that... :(

Until you been there, you can't begin to imagine.

Easy to blow 'em off when you're comfy in your own living room with a comfortable living.

Cheaper, cleaner natural gas is already doing that.

When some method comes along that is cheaper and cleaner than natural gas, that segment of the economy will go under, too.

Cindy Hamilton

What they really need are a bunch of good testers. About 1700 of them spread all over, including areas with limited Internet infrastructure.

Cindy Hamilton

Not blowing them off at all. It can be evolution, not revolution. It won't happen in five years either but do you continue to poison our atmosphere forever?

We have to look at what is good for the world, not just a few jobs that can be replaced over time. Things ar slow at the buggy whip factory too.

Can't be the infrastructure.

The wireless coverage map for the important places in the US are solid 4G-LTE blue.

Who ever said Iowa was an important place? They have a moment of fame every four years then go back to growing corn and hogs.

We can argue and disagree about how fast things should be done, what should be done, etc. But what is absurd at this point is to just deny that we should do anything at all and to argue that we should burn more coal. That's Trump's position. Withdrawing from the Paris agreement, which wasn't going to bind the US to do anything specific, was really dumb.

And most of what has been done over the last couple of decades has been a win-win. Cars have better MPG. Furnaces are 95% instead of 80%. AC went from 10 SEER to 14 to 18. Buildings are better insulated. Just turning down the thermostat in winter and putting on a sweater helps with CO2 and saves $$. My gas bill was cut by ~40% going to a new furnace. Solar is now down to the point where it's becoming cost effective without subsidies. If Trump's views and policies had been in place, what would have happened?

If you shut all of 'em down worldwide, it would only reduce annual emissions by roughly 1/3rd. While of some benefit, it isn't a panacea.

C sequestration is feasible; there's even a pretty important use for CO2 in enhanced petroleum recovery to the point the local ethanol plant has a very cost-effective byproduct revenue stream by putting it pipeline to W TX Permian Basin region 800 mi away.

Putting the whole US coal industry out of business instead is nonsense.

What kind of a future do you see for coal? To me, the writing is on the wall. Coal is in its last dying gasps as an industry. Yes, there is still a shitload in the ground, but that's where it should stay, IMHO.

The part that makes no sense to me is the idea of keeping a dying industry alive because a few people will lose a nasty job that probably killed lots of their ancestors. They need to let it go and find something else to do.