UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

(no message)

Liberalism Rule #16 - The Expert Threshold. If a false narrative has enough “experts” backing it, it becomes truth regardless of evidence to the contrary. “Experts” are defined as those who support the narrative, and they can be conjured if necessary (because of Liberalism Rule #3).

Conclusions

Data assimilation leverages paleotemperature proxy information and model simulations, capitalizing on both a large catalog of geological data as well as our best physical understanding of Phanerozoic climates (Fig. 1). The resulting product, PhanDA, is a statistically robust and internally consistent reconstruction of GMST spanning the past 485 million years and indicates that Earth’s temperature has varied more dynamically than previously thought (Fig. 2). We divide the record into five quantiles, or climate states (Fig. 3), and use these distinctions to demonstrate that, independent of time and throughout the Phanerozoic, GMSTs within each climate state are associated with similar LTGs. In addition to the expected polar amplification, PhanDA indicates a large range in tropical temperatures between the five climate states (22° to 42°C).

PhanDA GMST exhibits a strong relationship with atmospheric CO2 concentrations (Fig. 4), demonstrating that CO2 has been the dominant forcing controlling global climate variations across the Phanerozoic. However, because solar luminosity has also changed through time, the relationship is rather enigmatic; long-term changes in planetary albedo or changes in trace greenhouse gas concentrations may help to resolve the discrepancy. The CO2–GMST relationship also indicates a relatively consistent AESS of ~8°C across the Phanerozoic. This suggests that Phanerozoic GMST is highly predictable on multimillion-year timescales if CO2 concentrations are known, but that our understanding of how forcings and feedbacks on deep timescales balance—or enhance—one another is incomplete.
----------------

Note that the variations in GMST happen gradually over millions of years...and as mentioned , are strongly influenced by atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Our current Doubling of average CO2 concentration has occurred in just over 100 years...or 0.0001 of just 1M yrs...undeniably due to the burning of Finite Fossil Fuels.

It's not the Planet we're concerned about...it's the human population living on it...i.e. how will this rapid increase in GMST (see Dr. Roy Spencer's Global Temperature Data chart) affect the living and food growing conditions of today's humans? btw, you might want to ask Floridians how they feel about the next Cat 4 Hurricane about to beat down on them.

(no message)

on the planet. Coastal enclaves, in which ~40% of the world's population lives, are in jeopardy of having to move inland...and farmers are seeing reduced yields on their crops due to higher temperatures. The cause is understood...i.e. the burning of our very finite store of Fossil Fuels for Heat and Power. Note that according to sources like British Petroleum the world has 47 yrs of Proven Oil Reserves remaining...we need to save those FFs for all the other uses we rely on them for.

Time to take action...at least for those who are able to plan ahead.

(no message)

Link: https://www.nasa.gov/technology/nasa-study-rising-carbon-dioxide-levels-will-help-and-hurt-crops/

(no message)

Link: https://investigatemidwest.org/2023/10/16/nothings-predictable-extreme-weather-is-ruining-farmers-crops-and-their-finances/

(no message)

(no message)

threat to established human “settlements” (esp. coastal cities) …and farming areas .

Sorry to be the bearer of difficult news…

(no message)

(no message)

between 180 and 300 ppm...over the last ~150 yrs the top figure has risen to the level of 425 ppm, i.e. an amount equal to the entire High/Low range from the past ~1M yrs...and it's increasing monotonically as we continue to spew copious amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Also recall that JH's link called CO2 content the primary 'Forcing Function' of Global Surface Temps.

Now let's go to Dr. Roy Spencer's satellite recorded Global Tropospheric Temperature Data since ~1978...(see image below)...notice the amount of increase in less than 50 yrs?
...see the (increasing) trend?...think that won't impact coastal cities and established farming areas around the world?...if not, think again.

Don't be afraid to "Look Up"...and face Reality...your kids/grandkids will appreciate you acting like an adult.

To be clear Ty, I would be happy moving away from fossil fuels, and really wish we were ahead of the curve on nuclear. I like the things I've seen on molten salt reactors and think they could be an answer for energy. The biggest problem with nuclear is where are you going to put it?

My issue is actually just with you. You are a one trick pony who comes into every thread trying to push the same talking points, with the same links, and most of the time it has nothing to do with what the original thread was actually about.

The transition from horses to cars took decades. You seem to want to force everything overnight. Electric cars are gaining more and more infrastructure, and I believe will eventually will be the primary mode of transportation, given time. The infrastructure is not there to supply the power needed to swap every car to electric yet. And that still doesn't solve the problem of fossil fuels like you seem to think it does, because the majority of our energy is produced by fossil fuels.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), as of 2023, the breakdown of U.S. energy production by source is roughly: natural gas (38%), petroleum (34%), coal (11%), renewable energy (8%), and nuclear power (8%); with fossil fuels accounting for approximately 84% of total U.S. primary energy production. So all of you running around in an electric talking about how green you are because you aren't burning gas (I have heard the rumor you don't actually have an electric vehicle though) are still burning fossil fuels to power your vehicle, it just doesn't come out of your tailpipe.

I am mostly on your side on this issue, but I hate the high and mighty attitude people have acting like all it takes is x, y, or z and we'll have all clean energy. That is a lot of energy that will need to be replaced, and we are constantly demanding more every day.

Oh, and the last line of the conclusion, which is where most people put the final actual statement about what the paper would conclude, ends with "our understanding of how forcings and feedbacks on deep timescales balance—or enhance—one another is incomplete." That was my point about you only talking to one sentence in the two paragraph conclusion that you posted. You looked for what you wanted, highlighted it, and then regurgitated the same crap you do every time a climate study is brought up. Add in your haughtiness and condescension and it's a recipe to win over absolutely no one to your side. But you do you Ty.

sources, like the EIA...now to your points...

>Re: Support for Nuclear Power...as a former engineer and program manager on advanced Sodium Cooled Fast Reactors and then Thermal Reactors starting right after the OPEC oil embargo, it's particularly frustrating for me to witness the slow down in NP development...but finally we have an administration committed...not just with words, but actual funding...to GEN-IV reactors and their essential infrastructure (e.g. HALEU Fuel production, and Re-Cycling of Spent Fuel). Each of the new reactor designs will be smaller and more easily sited given their inherent safety features...and thus be suitable in many more locations...I'll be glad to discuss this further if you'd like, but the salient point is that each design should be ready for deployment approval in just five or six years...of course it will take more time to bring the needed amount of NP on line, but with bipartisan commitment, we can expand rapidly...not unlike what France did after that OPEC crisis. Note that Kamala Harris specifically expressed her support for Advanced Nuclear Power Plants in her Pittsburgh speech on the Economy.

>Issue: ME...that's a perception problem I really can't help you with...I do my best to provide factual information and data from reliable sources and invite anyone to challenge me...using similar methods to support their contentions...not sure why that's a problem.

>Transition...The horses to cars transition evolved without any external constraints, like Climate Change or Depleting Fossil Fuel Reserves, and thus could take as long as necessary for the market to adapt...we don't have that luxury and here's why...

- The EIA documents that the U.S. has on the order of 48 Bbls of Proven Oil Reserves supporting an annual consumption rate of ~7.3 Bbls (2024), which means, without imports, we have just 6-1/2 yrs of Oil left...and even if you Double or Triple that amount, it's still a serious problem...
- British Petroleum each year estimates the amount of worldwide Proven Oil Reserves vs Consumption...most recently it estimates ~47 years remaining...again, a very serious concern, given the myriad of other critical uses for Hydrocarbons.

- Then there's the ever worsening Climate Crisis impact on human habitation...

Sadly, too many people close their eyes and ears to these facts that are surely going to impact them and everyone else...much sooner than they would like. Therefore the prudent thing to do is continue bringing this issue up, rather than ignore it. Since you seem to appreciate such facts, I'm hoping you'll join in and help speed the transition.

>Rumor of not owning an EV...it's true...right now...but our next vehicle will absolutely be an EV...it's a timing issue and I don't fault anyone else's similar decision...just those who refuse to accept the need for change...nothing haughty about that.

>Paper's Finding...IMO the paper's "Conclusion" is a mystery, except for the part I highlighted...i.e. increases in CO2 atmospheric concentration cause increases in global surface temperatures...i.e. Global Warming from the burning of Fossil Fuels is a real thing and the doubling of CO2 in just 150 yrs is cause for immediate concern.

On nuclear power, I would love to have further conversations. How many reactors do you think we would have to bring online in order to replace even half of what is currently provided by fossil fuels? I saw a video talking about China planning to bring online a new reactor, what are your thoughts on their current plan in that regards? Do you think they are currently at an advantage over us?

The you issue I was pretty clear; how you talk to people, and the fact that you rarely stay on topic when you jump into a thread is my issue. You can resolve that easily by being less condescending and actually addressing the posts rather than deflecting to something that is tangentially the same but not actually what the post is about. I'm all for some good data, but you post the same thing over and over. You can take it as a honest critique and try to adjust, or you can brush it off, up to you. I'm certainly not anyone that you need to impress or take advice from.

The market will change when it is ready to change, it always has and always will. Trying to force it won't actually help.

Good on you for planning to get an electric vehicle, just remember what I said. Until the power grid is using renewables at a higher level than fossil fuels, you've just transitioned your carbon emissions from your car to a smoke stack. I remember getting into a climate change discussion with a guy who was a die hard Democrat. He went on and on about how we were killing the planet and that we needed to get off fossil fuels, and I asked what he drove. It was an old Tacoma truck making less than 15 mpg. I told him my car gets over 30 and he can lecture me when he actually contributes.

The conclusion was that we don't yet understand the complete picture of how these forces all interact. I am of the notion that less carbon dioxide will be good for the human race, and that should be a goal, I just disagree with people trying to shove it down everyone else's throat, especially the hypocritical people doing it. There was another video where the Australian government was trying to be "green" and were going to cut down a forest to put up solar panels to reduce carbon emissions. The problem was a study showed that leaving that particular forest of trees that were exceptionally good at clearing CO2 in place was actually a better call, but they were going to ignore it and move forward with the plan. That is virtue signaling at its finest.

depletion...coastal cities (see Florida) are under increased stress, and farmers are dealing with diminished yields due to Global Warming...due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere...due to the burning of FFs for heat and power....while the end is in sight for oil reserves (~7 yrs for the U.S., and ~48 yrs for the world)

This is not a fantasy, it's real...why would anyone just sit back and wait to see what happens and not take action? Since private industry has its own development challenges, it doesn't have the infrastructure creation capability to support new power plants, transmission lines, and charging stations...and in order to justify the construction of such facilities, there needs to be incentives by government to allow investors and builders to produce the needed changes.
i.e. it's a coordinated enterprise between gov't and industry. I'll look for a paper I've posted quite awhile ago that covered all the bases.

Your thoughts on the urgency of CC and FF reserves?...