Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,760
Default ?Q?Re=3a_261_scientists_sign_open_letter_calling_ for_?=?Q?‘deep_cuts=e2=80=99_to_greenhouse_gas_ emissions?=

On 2/4/2020 5:34 PM, dpb wrote:
On 2/3/2020 7:46 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, February 3, 2020 at 7:46:17 PM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
On 2/3/2020 4:52 PM, trader_4 wrote:
...

The issue isn't people agreeing, it;s that an extremely high percentage
of climate scientists that study it and have the facts and science
agree that it's anthropogenic.Â*Â*Â* I prefer to listen to them, instead
of Frank, Rush, Hannity, Trump, you, etc.

About now is the time someone here usually points to some climate
scientist who's long dead or some scientist in a field other than
climate science, who say otherwise, as if they counter the other 97%.

I always come back to the question of how many of these are being funded
by sources that would dry up if the answer were any different than the
one they are producing.Â* One can convince oneself of any lack of bias
pretty easily when its ones livelihood and career at stake.


And how much funding has the oil, coal, nat gas industries done and
are still doing?Â* Can funding affect science to some extent, sure.
But worldwide?Â* And virtually all the scientists?Â* Are they lying that
CO2 has increased 33% in just the last 100 years, while previous
naturally driven cycles took tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands
of years?Â* The science looks increasingly sound to me.Â* I was very
skeptical twenty years ago, but even then I said we should take
reasonable
steps to reduce CO2 emissions.Â* Most of that has been a good thing,
95% eff furnaces, higher MPG vehicles, better insulated buildings,
CFL, LEDs, etc.Â* And ten years ago I thought we should do more.
At this point, I think we should be doing even more.Â* But sadly we
have a president who bailed out of the Paris accord and wants to
burn more coal.

...

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?Â* 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
1000q sq.ft. Now is it about 2500. We are heating and cooling much
more. Do we really need that much space? A couple my age retired and
moved to a new house. Two people, mid 60s and the bought a 7000 sw. ft.
house. No way would I want that to take care of. Takes a lot of fuel
for no good reason.

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.

  #2   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,325
Default ?Q?Re=3a_261_scientists_sign_open_letter_calling_ for_?=?Q?‘deep_cuts=e2=80=99_to_greenhouse_gas_ emissions?=

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

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

....

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.

--
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,760
Default ?Q?Re=3a_261_scientists_sign_open_letter_calling_ for_?=?Q?‘deep_cuts=e2=80=99_to_greenhouse_gas_ emissions?=

On 2/4/2020 9:34 PM, dpb wrote:
On 2/4/2020 7:57 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
...

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

...

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.
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,325
Default ?Q?Re=3a_261_scientists_sign_open_letter_calling_ for_?=?Q?‘deep_cuts=e2=80=99_to_greenhouse_gas_ emissions?=

On 2/4/2020 8:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/4/2020 9:34 PM, dpb wrote:
On 2/4/2020 7:57 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
...

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

...

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.Â* Stop burning as much.Â* 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.

--

  #5   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,760
Default ?Q?Re=3a_261_scientists_sign_open_letter_calling_ for_?=?Q?‘deep_cuts=e2=80=99_to_greenhouse_gas_ emissions?=

On 2/4/2020 10:54 PM, dpb wrote:
On 2/4/2020 8:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/4/2020 9:34 PM, dpb wrote:
On 2/4/2020 7:57 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
...

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

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.Â* Stop burning as much.Â* 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.Â* 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.Â* 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.


  #6   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,074
Default ?Q?_261_scientists_sign_open_letter_calling_fo r_‘?=?Q?deep_cuts=e2=80=99_to_greenhouse_gas_emissions ?=

On 02/04/2020 09:24 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
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!

  #7   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,325
Default ?Q?Re=3a_261_scientists_sign_open_letter_calling_ for_?=?Q?‘deep_cuts=e2=80=99_to_greenhouse_gas_ emissions?=

On 2/4/2020 10:24 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/4/2020 10:54 PM, dpb wrote:
On 2/4/2020 8:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/4/2020 9:34 PM, dpb wrote:
On 2/4/2020 7:57 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
...

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

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.Â* Stop burning as much.Â* 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.Â* 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.Â* 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.Â* Same at stagecoach makers, horse shoe makers, you
don't suddenly stop and put them out of work.Â* Times change, industries
change, people adapt.Â* Same as they have for centuries.

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


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.

--

  #8   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,422
Default ?Q?Re=3A_261_scientists_sign_open_letter_calling_ for_‘d?=?Q?eep_cuts=E2=80=99_to_greenhouse_gas_emissions? =

On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 10:54:46 PM UTC-5, dpb wrote:
On 2/4/2020 8:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/4/2020 9:34 PM, dpb wrote:
On 2/4/2020 7:57 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
...

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

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.Â* Stop burning as much.Â* Simple.


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


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
  #9   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,422
Default ?Q?Re=3A_261_scientists_sign_open_letter_calling_ for_‘d?=?Q?eep_cuts=E2=80=99_to_greenhouse_gas_emissions? =

On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 11:58:05 PM UTC-5, rbowman wrote:
On 02/04/2020 09:24 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
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.


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
  #10   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,760
Default ?Q?Re=3a_261_scientists_sign_open_letter_calling_ for_?=?Q?‘deep_cuts=e2=80=99_to_greenhouse_gas_ emissions?=

On 2/5/2020 12:34 AM, dpb wrote:
On 2/4/2020 10:24 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/4/2020 10:54 PM, dpb wrote:
On 2/4/2020 8:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/4/2020 9:34 PM, dpb wrote:
On 2/4/2020 7:57 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
...

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

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.Â* Stop burning as much.Â* 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.Â* 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.Â* 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.Â* Same at stagecoach makers, horse shoe makers, you
don't suddenly stop and put them out of work.Â* Times change,
industries change, people adapt.Â* Same as they have for centuries.

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


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.

--

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.


  #11   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default ?Q?Re=3a_261_scientists_sign_open_letter_calling_ for_?=?Q?‘deep_cuts=e2=80=99_to_greenhouse_gas_ emissions?=

On 2/5/2020 6:13 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 11:58:05 PM UTC-5, rbowman wrote:
On 02/04/2020 09:24 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
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.

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


Can't be the infrastructure.

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

  #12   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,074
Default ?Q?_261_scientists_sign_open_letter_calling_fo r_‘?=?Q?deep_cuts=e2=80=99_to_greenhouse_gas_emissions ?=

On 02/05/2020 07:34 AM, Can you hear me now? wrote:
On 2/5/2020 6:13 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Tuesday, February 4, 2020 at 11:58:05 PM UTC-5, rbowman wrote:
On 02/04/2020 09:24 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
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.

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


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.

  #13   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,279
Default ?Q?Re=3A_261_scientists_sign_open_letter_calling_ for_‘d?=?Q?eep_cuts=E2=80=99_to_greenhouse_gas_emissions? =

On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 9:11:05 AM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/5/2020 12:34 AM, dpb wrote:
On 2/4/2020 10:24 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/4/2020 10:54 PM, dpb wrote:
On 2/4/2020 8:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/4/2020 9:34 PM, dpb wrote:
On 2/4/2020 7:57 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
...

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

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.Â* Stop burning as much.Â* 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.Â* 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.Â* 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.Â* Same at stagecoach makers, horse shoe makers, you
don't suddenly stop and put them out of work.Â* Times change,
industries change, people adapt.Â* Same as they have for centuries..

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


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.

--

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.



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?




  #14   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,325
Default ?Q?Re=3a_261_scientists_sign_open_letter_calling_ for_?=?Q?‘deep_cuts=e2=80=99_to_greenhouse_gas_ emissions?=

On 2/5/2020 9:59 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 9:11:05 AM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/5/2020 12:34 AM, dpb wrote:
On 2/4/2020 10:24 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/4/2020 10:54 PM, dpb wrote:
On 2/4/2020 8:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/4/2020 9:34 PM, dpb wrote:
On 2/4/2020 7:57 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
...

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

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.Â* Stop burning as much.Â* 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.Â* 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.Â* 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.Â* Same at stagecoach makers, horse shoe makers, you
don't suddenly stop and put them out of work.Â* Times change,
industries change, people adapt.Â* Same as they have for centuries.

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

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.

--

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.

....

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.

--

  #15   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,313
Default 261 scientists sign open letter calling for ‘deep cuts’ to greenhouse gas emissions

On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 07:59:32 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

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?


My new house didn't even come with a coal chute. If Trump gets his way, I
guess I'd better have one put in. I'll need to dig a basement first.



  #16   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,313
Default 261 scientists sign open letter calling for ‘deep cuts’ to greenhouse gas emissions

On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 10:24:40 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 2/5/2020 9:59 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 9:11:05 AM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/5/2020 12:34 AM, dpb wrote:
On 2/4/2020 10:24 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/4/2020 10:54 PM, dpb wrote:
On 2/4/2020 8:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 2/4/2020 9:34 PM, dpb wrote:
On 2/4/2020 7:57 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
...

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.
...

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.

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.

--

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.

...

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
****load 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.

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The price tag on universal health care is in, and ?Q?it?=?Q?’ bigger than ?Q?California’ budget burfordTjustice Home Repair 0 May 23rd 17 12:55 PM
Trey Gowdy Remembers Officer Kevin Carper For ?Q?‘?=?Q?National?= Police ?Q?Week=E2=80=99?= burfordTjustice Home Repair 0 May 20th 17 01:01 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:02 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"