I mean, seriously, you could have moved into a tiny home, given up meat, and walked to work, but, nope
Opinion: 140 inches of projected Syracuse snow shows climate change severity
On Nov. 11, the first snow of the semester greeted the city of Syracuse, to which residents and students responded with thicker jackets and winter boots. But this year, the familiar blanket of white covering campus points to something bigger: Meteorologists are concerned of what may be one of the coldest winters in years.
As temperatures drop this winter, climate change may not seem like a pressing issue. And with Syracuse’s reputation for cold weather, it’s easy to overlook the bigger problem. Instead of dismissing it as “just Syracuse being Syracuse,” we need to recognize this example of how climate change disrupts our seasons.
Climate change is often misunderstood as a trend toward higher temperatures. In reality, it doesn’t mean warm winters and warmer summers – it means instability. Climate change is more accurately defined by climate extremes, which include harsh transitions between seasons, unpredictable temperature changes from year to year and heavier snowfall.
This is what indoctrination looks like from a cult. The writer is a freshman at Syracuse U. I will give her this, if true
First, I try to save energy at home. The majority of our electricity and heat are generated by coal, oil and gas, so reducing the use of heating and cooling appliances can make a big difference. Even a simple swap like hanging laundry to dry instead of using a dryer lowers energy consumption. In fact, consider switching from fossil fuel-based electricity to renewable sources, including solar or wind.
I also walk or bike when I can, and take public transportation when I can’t. Roads are often congested with vehicles, most of them running on gasoline or diesel, so choosing to walk or bike reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
If true.
Steven “The Junkman” Milloy is a lawyer and lobbyist for tobacco, energy and chemical companies.
He’s part of Heartland Institute and a go-to “expert” for science deniers like Mr William. Heartland feels that neither tobacco nor global warming are dangerous.
Milloy typed, and William copied and pasted, ridiculously: “There’s only one word for climate: Hoax.”
“It’s snowing in Syracuse, therefore climate is a hoax”. Stupid, even for a MAGAt.
And yet you failed to refute a thing he said. A perfect example of attacking the messenger instead of the message. If you could show he’s wrong, that he’s a “lawyer, lobbyist for tobacco, energy and chemical companies” would be irrelevant. “Snowfalls will be a thing of the past…”
And again, what’s being denied?
WTF are you even arguing, Jl-one-note? Heavy snows do NOT falsify the theory of CO2-caused global warming.
It’s a silly “argument”. Who would seriously say that “climate” is a hoax? If William was serious he wouldn’t advertise the Junkman’s stupidiity.
What’s being denied you ask, again and again? The science behind the phenomenon of CO2-induced global warming. Duh. Get an argument.
Nice try-“record CO2, record fossil fuel use, urban heat island effect..and we’re predicting the snowiest December since 2017..”. All true, right? That he calls it a hoax is just as valid as calling it settled science.
“The science behind CO2 induced warming”. What science are you alluding to besides the simple correlation of CO2 up, warming up?
Jl typed: “record CO2, record fossil fuel use, urban heat island effect..and we’re predicting the snowiest December since 2017..”.
So? More snow falls at 32F than at 20F (warmer air holds more water). Regardless, water still freezes at 32F.
Is your and Milloy’s and William’s point that global warming should eliminate all snow??
Don’t be childish.
So in other words you can’t refute Milloy, which I said. Shocking. And again, “we’re predicting the coldest and snowiest winter…”Predicting is irrelevant unless the prediction happens
“Is your and Milloy’s point that gw should eliminate all snow?” Nobody said that. Remember, it was an alarmist who predicted “snow will be a thing of the past”.
Never a straight answer from Jabba the Rimjob only rhetorical questions.
Short, chubby CumBreath doesn’t even know what a rhetorical question is.
“Even a simple swap like hanging laundry to dry instead of using a dryer lowers energy consumption.”
This is only assured if you can hang the laundry outside, which, since we’re talking about what’s going on in winter, makes the quoted statement problematic, perhaps even overtly stupid. I would agree with the statement when the weather is cooperating, however (not raining, preferable sunny, temperature high enough to dry the laundry before sundown, etc.) Drying clothes involves evaporating water. If a particular item, say a towel, has 2 ounces of water in it when you start to dry it, the amount of energy it will take to evaporate that water is the same whether you do it in a dryer or hang it over your shower rod. The efficiency of the method you use to do that will determine how much total energy is used to dry the towel. So, is the clothes dryer more or less efficient than the house heater for doing this? I don’t know, but a blanket statement like quoted above strikes me as being made in ignorance.
Perhaps in the winter the best thing to do might be to vent the dryer to the air handler in the house, and run the fan so that the wasted warm air that normally gets pumped outside gets pumped throughout the house. That will allow the furnace to run less. The remaining concern will involve the increase in humidity. But such an increase would occur anyway if hanging clothes inside somewhere, although probably more slowly. These are things that should be explored before making a blanket statement like she did.
She also tries to save energy by taking public transportation. Does that actually save energy? Let’s ignore the energy cost of building the road or train tracks or whatever infrastructure is needed for some nebulous public transportation system, and just look at energy to run one. I’m going to pick the bus as my example. A typical bus gets about 5 MPG. For the bus to save energy compared to its primary contender, the car, you have to look at Passenger MPG (PMPG). The bus driver doesn’t count as a passenger, but the car driver does because the driver of the car is transporting themself to their destination (so, we’re not talking about a taxi or uber). A single person driving their car, by far the most common situation when it comes to commuting to work, results in a PMPG equal to the MPG of the car. My best car for commuting got 33 MPG, but sone get nearly 60 MPG. So the bus beats my car as long as there are 7+ passengers on board on average, but it takes 12+ to beat those high MPG cars. Certainly our freshman writer can assist with attaining this occupancy, but does the bus actually manage it? If it doesn’t then the bus is using more energy than using such cars would. But again, she appears to just be making an assumption based on what she wants to be true, without any analysis or research being mentioned.
There are often overlooked trade-offs involved in things, and often the feel-good idea turns out to be impractical when all factors are considered. It is apparent that the freshman involved is making blanket assumptions that might be false. The problem is that she wants policy decisions to be made, either by other people or by some authority, based on her possibly erroneous assumptions, and that’s just stupid. Without the needed data analysis, such a decision will only accomplish the stated goal of reducing energy use by coincidence. You might as well use a Magic 8 Ball to make the decision.
As for climate, too many people are either ignorant of, or ignore, Milankovitch cycles, which are the primary cause of climate change on Earth. It has to do with the eccentricity of Earth’s orbit, and how it changes over time (hundreds of years). As it changes, the total amount of the sun’s energy that reaches Earth per year changes. This is the primary driver of Earth’s long-term temperature trends. Until we can generate artificial gravity wells so we can counteract the change in eccentricity, we’re at the mercy of the gravity effects that cause these cycles, and no amount of CO2 reduction will change that. CO2 has the added benefit of being plant food, and the recent rise in CO2 has coincided with a decrease in total desert size on the planet. And of course, reducing C02 below 180 PPM results in plant death, which would result in a mass extinction the likes of which the Earth has never seen. Yet far too many people think we need to drive CO2 levels in the atmosphere to zero because they’re ignorant of the fact that this would kill pretty much all life on Earth.
Perhaps in the winter the best thing to do might be to vent the dryer to the air handler in the house, and run the fan so that the wasted warm air that normally gets pumped outside gets pumped throughout the house. That will allow the furnace to run less. The remaining concern will involve the increase in humidity.
And fucking lint all over the place…plus continually replacing the HVAC air filters.
nylon stocking over the vent
The three main Milankovitch cycles are eccentricity, the changing shape of Earth’s orbit (around 100,000-year cycle); obliquity, the wobble of the Earth’s axis (around 41,000-year cycle); and precession, the slow wobble of the Earth’s axis itself (around 23,000-year cycle). These cycles alter the amount and distribution of solar radiation reaching Earth, influencing long-term climate patterns.
Is there evidence that the Milankovitch cycles are causing the current warming? Nope. In fact, the Earth’s current position within these natural cycles suggests the planet should be in a long-term cooling trend, gradually moving toward another ice age! Based on Earth’s orbital patterns, the next ice age would have naturally begun around 10,000 years from now, but human-caused global warming should delay it significantly!!
Of course, the projected effects of human-caused global warming will offer plenty of challenges much sooner than 10,000 years!
Commenter typed: “… far too many people think we need to drive CO2 levels in the atmosphere to zero because they’re ignorant of the fact that this would kill pretty much all life on Earth.”
I’ve heard no one say that CO2 should be 0 ppm, but it’s an interesting idea, since 0 ppm would drop the mean surface temperature 0 fahrenheit!!!. If CO2 keeps the Earth from being an ice covered ball, why wouldn’t MORE CO2 cause warming? Oh well.
Human activities have increased CO2 from 280 ppm to 420 ppm, a 50% increase. How high will it go? Anyway, CO2 has been around 200 – 300 ppm for a couple million years. BTW, the human species has only been around some 300,000 years. Human civilization is only been around some 12,000 – 15,000 years.
Why do you feel/believe God waited a billions of years to create humans? Did she/he just get bored?
Two more stupid rhetorical questions from Jabba the Rimjob.
CumBreath keeps braying about rhetorical questions which are supposed to have an obvious answer – yet he never answers. He must be too stupid. Probably brain damaged by too much natural gas.
Hope that helps, Jabba.
College freshmen are good at being brainless activists. Women are particularly good at writing about themselves. You will see it in most of their writing. At some point they will make it about themselves. She may not have chosen a major course of study yet, since she has only been out of high school for 6 months, but it already seems clear she will be focusing on activism. Likely a “communications” degree.
I can fix all this with one sentence: Winter is cold, Summer is hot.
I can fix all this with one sentence: Winter is cold and Summer is hot.
Carbon Dioxide is a vital nutrient that supports all life on the planet. C3 plants are most efficient at 2,000 ppm and humans can tolerate up to 150,000 ppm (15%). Humans for all time are responsible for a mere 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. It is a sad joke trying to limit CO2 emissions when the earth can belch a year’s worth of human generated CO2 in a day. The other point is that most of the warming CO2 does provide has already happened. Any additional CO2 provides for no warming because the infrared frequencies CO2 absorbs/emits are already saturated. Higher CO2 in the atmosphere improves plant growth, resistance to draught, and increased yields. The most powerful greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is H2O, but nobody is yet dumb enough to limit Hydrogen Oxide; they will get there.
The Medieval Warm period ending by the 16th century which gave way to the Mini Ice Age which lasted to about the mid 19th Century. We have been in a warming phase since about 1850 and it was not caused by people spewing CO2 in the atmosphere. The Milankovitch cycles and the Sun’s cycles are the driving factors. The current warm < Medieval Warm Period < Roman Warm Period < Minoan Warm Perido < Holocene Maximum. Humans do better when its warmer and civilization collapses when it gets colder. The current batch of Warmist are guaranteeing our civilization will collapse when the Ice Age returns because we wasted time and capital on wind and solar instead of perfecting nuclear fission.
Anthropomorphic caused global warming is a scam, death cult, and an excuse for totalitarian control of society.
Windmills and solar panels are blight upon the landscape. They cannot generate enough power to pay for the materials and time used to create them. If you really care about the environment, you would be demanding fission energy which generates NO CO2. Old school fission plants only burn 3% of the energy contained in UOx fuel. Thanks to Jimmy and Amy Carter we have all this 'waste' nuclear fuel which can be fully burned in IV – V generation fission plants killing two problems with one stone. Getting rid of nuclear waste and generating all the power we need for an advancing civilization.
The true believers are too fucking stupid to have an intelligent conversation, and the one that do know better perpetuate it cuz they are part of the grift. So when it snows, in DC in December I always check to see if Al Gore is visiting ;P
Little of what you typed regarding CO2 is true or even relevant.
Nuclear power needs to be pursued.
Thus spoke Elwood… Non-sequitur. Can you prove the linear temperature response to increasing CO2 concentrations? Can you explain the Carbon cycle on Earth? Can you demonstrate how human emission could be responsible for the increased CO2 percentage? Maybe you could explain to the good people out there the half life of CO2 in the atmosphere? The answers to all those questions do not support the hypothesis of Anthropogenic global warming. It is a scam, a death cult, and grift of immense proportions.
Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes, I could. The answers to all those questions DO support the theory of anthropogenic global warming.
You know the answers to those questions but you choose to ignore them.
So Jabba could you expound on your answers?
I for one promise not to ignore them.
Go ahead.
Yes, CumBreath the Chub, I could expound on them and have before.
But you can Google them.
Well obviously Jabba the Rimjob you cannot and you just proved it.