Some good news on climate

[BDKJMU]

Look at the dates. They were polled at the peak of summer in the middle of a heat wave wirh all the accompanying alarmist news compared to the last poll being done in the middle of the fall with nothing going on..

Now do the same poll like the last one, in the middle of Oct..

Fair point. My guess is that it won't be as bad as the current poll but will still be worse than the October 2021 poll.

Attitudes are gradually changing and MAGAt yahoo statements and policies could be on the wrong side of public opinion in the future.

Maybe. 3/5/3 points higher now. If you poll again middle Oct maybe would be a couple of points higher..

[kalm]

Impacts for me:

Cost and availability of water both public and private. Restrictions on what crops to grow for our farmed land and our garden.

Draught and irrigation impacts on golf local golf courses, the lakes and streams I like to fish and the habitats I love.

Population increases to our area from hotter climates.

Increased threat of skin cancer (wife already had melanoma once).

I’m resigned to accepting what happens. It’s impossible to be an American and not hypocritical on climate. Our lifestyle demands it. But I’ll continue to work on being better about the small things within my control like gardening, less consumption, recycling, etc.

What is the impact of golf courses on climate and the environment? Do they use too much water and harm the ecosystem? Would we be better off returning golf courses to native vegetation? Maybe you should close down your course to really demonstrate your commitment.

Yes. They have used too much water. That’s changed a bit through improved maintenance practices (allowing more marginal areas to go to native/non-irrigated, soil amendments and wetting agents that decreases water needs, more water efficient sprinkler heads and clocks, etc.

The average American lawn itself is a drain. Irrigation, greater chemical use than most golf courses, non-draught resistant grass species. But that too is improving by necessity with hardscaping and lower impact cover crops.

As for me. We were forced already to close down 9 holes due to water rates and that’s after we’d reduced consumption through the above practices. We’ve used on average 60% of the water our direct competitors use. Wasn’t enough though as the front 9 is being developed for residential single family and sone multi family units which ironically will use way more water than the course did (trust me, I did the research).

So yeah…in this regard I’ve had skin in the game and have demonstrated commitment.

[UNI88]

What is the impact of golf courses on climate and the environment? Do they use too much water and harm the ecosystem? Would we be better off returning golf courses to native vegetation? Maybe you should close down your course to really demonstrate your commitment.

Yes. They have used too much water. That’s changed a bit through improved maintenance practices (allowing more marginal areas to go to native/non-irrigated, soil amendments and wetting agents that decreases water needs, more water efficient sprinkler heads and clocks, etc.

The average American lawn itself is a drain. Irrigation, greater chemical use than most golf courses, non-draught resistant grass species. But that too is improving by necessity with hardscaping and lower impact cover crops.

As for me. We were forced already to close down 9 holes due to water rates and that’s after we’d reduced consumption through the above practices. We’ve used on average 60% of the water our direct competitors use. Wasn’t enough though as the front 9 is being developed for residential single family and sone multi family units which ironically will use way more water than the course did (trust me, I did the research).

So yeah…in this regard I’ve had skin in the game and have demonstrated commitment.

Good for you!

And "the front 9 is being developed for residential single family and some multi family units which ironically will use way more water than the course did" is where conservation can conflict with affordable housing (not that golf course properties are typically "affordable"). Not everyone wants to pay for or live in densely packed LEED certified apartment/condo buildings in the city center where they can take public transportation.

[kalm]

Well this doesn’t look like good news…at all…

[houndawg]

Well this doesn’t look like good news…at all…

we've been lucky so far to be a sweet spot, the range of weather we get hasn't changed much but when we get it seems to be changing.

[kalm]

More fear mongering….

https://www.fox26houston.com/news/hundr ... ounty-park

[SeattleGriz]

Well this doesn’t look like good news…at all…

Can you tell me how that was measured?

[kalm]

Well this doesn’t look like good news…at all…

Can you tell me how that was measured?

It says at the bottom the numbers come from NOAA. Not sure how they measure other than thermometers…in the ocean.

Why?

[SeattleGriz]

Can you tell me how that was measured?

It says at the bottom the numbers come from NOAA. Not sure how they measure other than thermometers…in the ocean.

Why?

Because the "data" presented has been interpolated to fill in large gaps. Meaning they don't have actual measurements.

In addition, Leon uses the Climate Reanalyzer in which NOAA states:

NOAA, whose figures are considered the gold standard in climate data, said in a statement Thursday that it cannot validate the unofficial numbers. It noted that the reanalyzer uses model output data, which it called “not suitable” as substitutes for actual temperatures and climate records. The agency monitors global temperatures and records on a monthly and an annual basis, not daily.

In essence, Leon is using made up data and not actual measurements. A model. Remember our previous discussion on models? Someone has to make an assumption for the model to function.

[kalm]

It says at the bottom the numbers come from NOAA. Not sure how they measure other than thermometers…in the ocean.

Why?

Because the "data" presented has been interpolated to fill in large gaps. Meaning they don't have actual measurements.

In addition, Leon uses the Climate Reanalyzer in which NOAA states:

NOAA, whose figures are considered the gold standard in climate data, said in a statement Thursday that it cannot validate the unofficial numbers. It noted that the reanalyzer uses model output data, which it called “not suitable” as substitutes for actual temperatures and climate records. The agency monitors global temperatures and records on a monthly and an annual basis, not daily.

In essence, Leon is using made up data and not actual measurements. A model. Remember our previous discussion on models? Someone has to make an assumption for the model to function.

How about a link?

[SeattleGriz]

Because the "data" presented has been interpolated to fill in large gaps. Meaning they don't have actual measurements.

In addition, Leon uses the Climate Reanalyzer in which NOAA states:



In essence, Leon is using made up data and not actual measurements. A model. Remember our previous discussion on models? Someone has to make an assumption for the model to function.

How about a link?

Here's the link to the AP story in which NOAA distances itself from Climate Reanalyzer. Also, do you know what the 0 - 60 N on Leon's chart means?

https://apnews.com/article/global-heat- ... b1a37efe23

[kalm]

How about a link?

Here's the link to the AP story in which NOAA distances itself from Climate Reanalyzer. Also, do you know what the 0 - 60 N on Leon's chart means?

https://apnews.com/article/global-heat- ... b1a37efe23

Interesting and thank you.

The link deals with land temps. Is NOAA also backing away from CR’s water temps?

Also, NOAA still acknowledges the warming signals and threats. Are they to be believed in that regard as well?

[SeattleGriz]

Here's the link to the AP story in which NOAA distances itself from Climate Reanalyzer. Also, do you know what the 0 - 60 N on Leon's chart means?

https://apnews.com/article/global-heat- ... b1a37efe23

Interesting and thank you.

The link deals with land temps. Is NOAA also backing away from CR’s water temps?

Also, NOAA still acknowledges the warming signals and threats. Are they to be believed in that regard as well?

I don't know the answer, but would assume if CR is using the same methodology, NOAA would have the same stance.

CR does a nice job of providing visuals and filling in gaps, but NOAA knows it unfortunately can't have data "smoothed over". It has to provide the actual data.

It's a shame, because CR is a useful visual tool, but when the difference is only .3 degrees, we get all the stories about "hottest on record" vs status quo.

[Gil Dobie]

Obama built a mansion on the water, north coast of Oahu. He appears to ignore his parties fear mongering. Algore and the 20 foot sea rise hasn't happened.

[houndawg]

Obama built a mansion on the water, north coast of Oahu. He appears to ignore his parties fear mongering. Algore and the 20 foot sea rise hasn't happened.

Clearly a Democrat hoax.

[SeattleGriz]

Obama built a mansion on the water, north coast of Oahu. He appears to ignore his parties fear mongering. Algore and the 20 foot sea rise hasn't happened.

Clearly a Democrat hoax.

Close. Clearly a dip shit hoax.

[Winterborn]

Well this doesn’t look like good news…at all…

Can you tell me how that was measured?

You ask good questions.

[houndawg]

Clearly a Democrat hoax.

Close. Clearly a dip shit hoax.

Move along, nothing to see here.

[BDKJMU]

Clinton: If only you’d elected me it wouldn’t be so hot outside..

[GannonFan]

Clinton: If only you’d elected me it wouldn’t be so hot outside..

I don't remember her advocating for widespread nuclear power in the '80's when we could've really made gains in reducing greenhouse emissions due to power generation. The climate mess is a collective failure by all sides in politics - too much focus on politics rather than on genuine avenues for environmental improvements. Nothing we do now is going to have any significant effect on the next few decades.

[houndawg]

Clinton: If only you’d elected me it wouldn’t be so hot outside..

I don't remember her advocating for widespread nuclear power in the '80's when we could've really made gains in reducing greenhouse emissions due to power generation. The climate mess is a collective failure by all sides in politics - too much focus on politics rather than on genuine avenues for environmental improvements. Nothing we do now is going to have any significant effect on the next few decades.

Nuclear had issues in the 80s that it doesn't have today because the technology has advanced and we're more careful about stuff like building plants on earthquake faults. Small decentralized nuke plants without weaponizable waste are doable now, and should be .

[kalm]

Clinton: If only you’d elected me it wouldn’t be so hot outside..

I don't remember her advocating for widespread nuclear power in the '80's when we could've really made gains in reducing greenhouse emissions due to power generation. The climate mess is a collective failure by all sides in politics - too much focus on politics rather than on genuine avenues for environmental improvements. Nothing we do now is going to have any significant effect on the next few decades.

Nothing?

We shouldn’t even try?

[houndawg]

I don't remember her advocating for widespread nuclear power in the '80's when we could've really made gains in reducing greenhouse emissions due to power generation. The climate mess is a collective failure by all sides in politics - too much focus on politics rather than on genuine avenues for environmental improvements. Nothing we do now is going to have any significant effect on the next few decades.

Nothing?

We shouldn’t even try?

We should. What will happen is that the usual crowd will start up a steady drumbeat of: "See? Nothing is changing, these ineffective restrictions are hurting bidniz and should be done away with immediately in the interest of shareholder values".

[GannonFan]

Nothing?

We shouldn’t even try?

We should. What will happen is that the usual crowd will start up a steady drumbeat of: "See? Nothing is changing, these ineffective restrictions are hurting bidniz and should be done away with immediately in the interest of shareholder values".

Of course we should try. But it's also going to have to be realistic. Energy production can and should rely heavily on nuclear, wind, and solar. We need to be realistic and push these nuclear options through without the steadfast resistance that has met them to date. Cars should certainly be pushing towards hybrid at a minimum and that could happen today. Going full-on electric isn't something that's feasible today (sourcing battery components is problematic, ensuring rapid charging stations nationwide are in place is far from realizable at the moment but getting there, and of course the cars just cost way too much to allow people to make the move) but could be ten years from now. Increasing mileages to over 50 mpg (and in some cases well above that) should be relatively straightforward and we're already moving in that direction. Those two things will go a long way to making the US a significantly lower emitter in the years ahead.

The real challenge now, assuming that we can convince the left to go nuclear and can convince the right to go electric with vehicles (and both groups have been stubborn to say the least before and partly why we are where we are today) is what to do with the rest of the world. Both China and India, among others, are going to be significant emitters for decades to come, as well as other collections of developing nations. It's not really feasible for them to go all nuclear nor would we really want that unless safety can be controlled by groups outside of those countries. And the population of the world is obviously an issue (people keep breathing and needing to eat) so how do we control that without going all Malthusian. Making America a net zero emitter is really the easier thing to do - but it doesn't do much for the world and for the global climate if we don't have answers for other things. Saying that we're not going to fly airplanes and never drive again or eliminate cows from the world aren't legitimate environmental policies, nor is lowering the standards of living. But everything else is on the table.

[kalm]

We should. What will happen is that the usual crowd will start up a steady drumbeat of: "See? Nothing is changing, these ineffective restrictions are hurting bidniz and should be done away with immediately in the interest of shareholder values".

Of course we should try. But it's also going to have to be realistic. Energy production can and should rely heavily on nuclear, wind, and solar. We need to be realistic and push these nuclear options through without the steadfast resistance that has met them to date. Cars should certainly be pushing towards hybrid at a minimum and that could happen today. Going full-on electric isn't something that's feasible today (sourcing battery components is problematic, ensuring rapid charging stations nationwide are in place is far from realizable at the moment but getting there, and of course the cars just cost way too much to allow people to make the move) but could be ten years from now. Increasing mileages to over 50 mpg (and in some cases well above that) should be relatively straightforward and we're already moving in that direction. Those two things will go a long way to making the US a significantly lower emitter in the years ahead.

The real challenge now, assuming that we can convince the left to go nuclear and can convince the right to go electric with vehicles (and both groups have been stubborn to say the least before and partly why we are where we are today) is what to do with the rest of the world. Both China and India, among others, are going to be significant emitters for decades to come, as well as other collections of developing nations. It's not really feasible for them to go all nuclear nor would we really want that unless safety can be controlled by groups outside of those countries. And the population of the world is obviously an issue (people keep breathing and needing to eat) so how do we control that without going all Malthusian. Making America a net zero emitter is really the easier thing to do - but it doesn't do much for the world and for the global climate if we don't have answers for other things. Saying that we're not going to fly airplanes and never drive again or eliminate cows from the world aren't legitimate environmental policies, nor is lowering the standards of living. But everything else is on the table.

This a solid summary.

We are attached to the convenience of oil infrastructure and delicious beef. Much of the rest of the world follows suit.