Climate Change Denier comes in from the cold: SCIENCE!!!

This isn't the right topic for this, but this is the closest I could find. Today an editorial appeared in the Washington Post arguing that we shouldn't be trying to save endangered species, or any species: We don’t need to save endangered species. Extinction is part of evolution.--Percy

Didn’t see where anyone had posted this yet: Climate Science Special ReportWritten by the authors of the government’s National Climate Assessment, it’s intended as a lay level report on why climate change is real, why it is really us, and how it will affect people both broadly and personally.Percy

I posted the document before having time to read it. After taking a look at it, and in answer to your question, two things:

1. Despite the claims that it is a lay-level report, it is not. Not even close. For example:
   ​

   quote:

   ---

   In this report, we follow the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommendation that the RF [Radiative Force] caused by a forcing agent be evaluated as the net radiative flux change at the tropopause [the boundary between the tropospere and the stratosphere] after stratospheric temperatures have adjusted to a new radiative equilibrium while assuming all other variables (for example, temperatures and cloud cover) are held fixed (Box 8.1 of Myhre et al. 2013¹⁷ ).

   ---

   ​
   I didn't just pick out a complex section. The whole document reads like this. The terminology is technical, the focus is technical, it is dense with the technical. This is a horrible document for the layperson.
   ​
2. It spends almost no time on the impact of food production on climate change. There's just this:
   ​

   quote:

   ---

   Growth rates in the global mean nitrous oxide (N2O) concentration and RF over the industrial era are smaller than for CO₂ and methane (Figures 2.4 and 2.5). N₂O is emitted in the nitrogen cycle in natural ecosystems and has a variety of anthropogenic sources, including the use of synthetic fertilizers in agriculture, motor vehicle exhaust, and some manufacturing processes. The current global value near 330 ppb reflects steady growth over the industrial era with average increases in recent decades of 0.75 ppb per year (Figure 2.4). Fertilization in global food production is responsible for about 80% of the growth rate. Anthropogenic sources account for approximately 40% of the annual N₂O emissions of 17.9 (8.1 to 30.7) TgN. N₂O has an atmospheric lifetime of about 120 years and a GWP in the range 265—298 (Myhre et al. 2013 Table 8.7). The primary sink of N₂O is photochemical destruction in the stratosphere, which produces nitrogen oxides (NO_x) that catalytically destroy ozone (e.g., Skiba and Rees 2014 ). Small indirect climate effects, such as the response of stratospheric ozone, are generally not included in the N₂O RF.

   ---

   ​
   That is, fertilizers used in food production are responsible for 80% of the growth rate in N₂O (nitrous oxide), which as a greenhouse gas is 298 times worse than carbon dioxide (see Greenhouse Effect of Nitrous Oxide). Cattle feed is created via food production using fertilizers. For example, 60% of US corn production is used as cattle feed (much not of sufficient quality for human consumption).
   ​
   The top graph shows the main greenhouse gases over time, CO₂ (carbon dioxide), CH₄ (methane) and N₂O:
   ​
   ​
   CO₂ is the one we have to worry about most because it is the one rising by far the fastest.

--Percy

Or in English: 0.5 hectares = 1.24 acres I can tell that 1 ars = 1,000 square meters, but what does "ars" stand for? Did you mean "are", which I've never heard of before just now using Google, but 1 hectare = 100 are, not 10 are, so I'm not sure what you mean.--Percy

As I listen to what's left of Florence thunder down on my roof here in New Hampshire, and keeping in mind that a record typhoon just hit the Philippines with 165 mph winds before moving on the Hong Kong and China, and that a record hurricane just hit Houston last year dropping a national record 60 inches of rain, can there be any doubt that we are in the midst of climate change where storms are wetter and slower moving and more dangerous?Here in New England climate change has already affected our seasons. 30 years ago the trees in our woods would begin turning color at the end of August, now it happens at the end of September. We're wetter now than we used to be, so much so that moss began growing on some parts of my driveway about five years ago. The blueberries that once carpeted the forest floor off our front yard are long gone. Lady Slippers, a harbinger of spring, are becoming more and more rare.The climate change prediction for the New England region is that we would become warmer and wetter. We were warmer this summer than we've ever been. I thought wetter would mean more rain, but it turned out to mean higher humidity - it was a very hot and humid summer. The warmer part also means less snow. We get more rain in the winter now than we used to.--Percy

The nature of any climate change will differ around the world. Changes could be in any direction, including warmer/colder and wetter/drier. On average the global temperature will rise.The biggest climate change could be to Europe if Greenland's melting glaciers disrupt the Gulf Stream that keeps Europe's climate moderate.--Percy

An article in today's Washington Post (Houses intact after Hurricane Michael were often saved by low-cost reinforcements) says that one of the contributing factors to houses that survived was use of windstorm plywood.Googling windstorm plywood didn't tell me anything I could understand. Windstorm plywood eliminates blocking, but what is blocking? Even Wikipedia just left me more confused. And windstorm plywood reduces or eliminates the need for metal hardware. How is that possible?I'd be grateful if anyone can provide a simple explanation of how windstorm plywood is different from normal plywood, what is the blocking that is eliminated, how is it possible to attach plywood to a frame without "metal hardware", and how these differences add up to a house that is more resistant to high winds?Just curious. Thanks!--Percy

Thanks, now I get what blocking is. The main idea is to use one piece of plywood from base to top, making blocking part way up unnecessary. But how is "no blocking" stronger than blocking? It seems that blocking done correctly should even stronger since two parallel studs with no horizontal block between them have to be weaker than when there are one or more horizontal blocks. One guess would be that "no blocking" provides no joints into which wind could get a grip, but the plywood is covered by siding, so that couldn't be it unless it's intended for after the wind strips off the siding.I can see how "no blocking" reduces the need for hardware, since blocking requires extra nails, but not how it could eliminate it. How could plywood be fastened to studs without nails?Now I'm looking at https://www.norbord.com/na/wall-sheathing/windstorm/.

quote:

---

Eliminates the gable end hinge point when Windstorm extends beyond the bottom chord

---

What is the "gable end hinge point"? Is that the top of the gable? And what is the "bottom chord"?

quote:

---

Lengths cover from the wall bottom plate up to the underside of the top chord with one Windstorm structural sheathing panel.

---

What is a top chord? Is this the underside of the roof?

quote:

---

Roof hurricane clips may be eliminated in most areas of the country because Windstorm connects the roof system to the wall system and prevents lift and roll over.

---

A hurricane clip fastens the top plate to the roof trusses and/or rafters. How do plywood sheets that extend all the way up to the roof eliminate the need for hurricane clips or at least something to fasten the roof to the top plate? Do these longer plywood sheets somehow get attached to the roof?However it is done, how does it prevent "lift and roll over"? How would it "prevent lift" since this whole junction between plywood sheath and roof is covered by the soffit?

quote:

---

Eliminates the hinge point at the truss and top plate connection and eliminates the blocking.

---

This is closely related to the previous point. I'm still not sure how their extra long plywood sheathing is connected to the roof, so maybe understanding what that looks like would explain why they think the "hinge point" where the roof connects to the plywood is no longer a hinge point. Even if the fastening is more secure it still has to be a "hinge point," doesn't it?This is from the Windstorm FAQ.

quote:

---

Windstorm panels can eliminate or reduce stud to plate connectors and floor to floor connector straps.

---

If there are no or fewer stud to plate connectors and floor to floor connector straps, doesn't that just mean using more nails? I'm still not getting how it's possible to ever eliminate hardware. Are nails not considered hardware?

quote:

---

Windstorm offers an easy, efficient way to eliminate unnecessary horizontal joints altogether, thus significantly reducing wall air leakage.

---

Is wall air leakage a significant contributor to exerting destructive force on a structure during high winds?Sorry to be a nuisance with all the questions. Obviously I shouldn't go into the building trades. --Percy

Excellent and well explained. Thank you. Doh! Yes, of course, I see now. Blocking in the shape of an 'X' would be far more effective than a horizontal block, but only structurally. It would be useless for providing a connection point where two pieces of plywood join.This image was helpful: So the hinge point they were actually talking about is near where that arrow is pointing at the junction between the truss and the side wall. I had wrongly assumed that the hinge point they were talking about was on the side of the building away from the arrow, again where the truss meets the side wall.On which side of the gable would one install hurricane clips, the end where the arrow is, or on the sides? If the answer is both then how would windstorm plywood eliminate the need for hurricane clips on the side. Or if you don't need hurricane clips on the side then why not? Isn't lift generated here, too? In fact, isn't the danger of rollover from the sides, not the gable ends?Your answer about hardware makes sense.Thanks for the effort it took to explain all this.--Percy

It was recently discovered that several weeks ago Hurricane Walaka wiped a tiny Hawaiian island off the map. East Island was in the extreme northwest of the Hawaiian island chain and is thought to have only been a couple thousand years old. Scientists knew the island was vulnerable to climate change but expected it would endure another decade or two. Here's a before/after image of the former island: In related news, a category 5 typhoon just hit the Northern Mariana Islands (it's a US territory about 3/4 of the way toward the Philippines from the Hawaiian islands, not too far from Guam). The government there is calling it the worst storm they've ever experienced: --Percy

This Washington Post article has before/after aerial photos of the Northern Mariana Islands: Satellite images of destruction by Super Typhoon Yutu in the Northern Mariana Islands--PercyEdited by Percy, : No reason given.

Connect the Dots to See Where Trump’s Taking Us, an opinion piece in today's New York Times, makes a clear and entertaining statement about the nature of climate change. Here's a taste:

quote:

---

Think of the dots Trump refuses to connect:

​

Dot No. 1: Get the term “global warming” out of your head. What’s actually happening is better described as “global weirding.” The warming of the atmosphere makes the weather weird. First, the hots get hotter. This then leads to greater evaporation, which means there’s more water vapor in clouds for precipitation. So the wets get wetter and the floods get wider. But the droughts in dry areas also get drier.

​

Some of the colds can even get colder, as when a weakened polar vortex, which normally keeps cold air trapped in the Arctic, allows more frigid polar air to push southward into the U.S. At the same time, the hurricanes that are fueled by warmer ocean temperatures get more violent.

​

That’s why you’re seeing weird weather extremes in all directions. So, The Washington Post reported that in Montana: “On March 3, the low temperature tanked to a bone-chilling minus-32 in Great Falls. Combined with a high of minus-8, the day finished a whopping 50 degrees below normal.” At the time, the city was in its longest stretch below freezing on record.

​

Temperatures in Great Falls, Mont., did not rise above freezing for 32 consecutive days between February and March. Rion Sanders/Great Falls Tribune

​

But then The Post reported that on May 11 in a town “near the entrance to the Arctic Ocean in northwest Russia, the temperature surged to 84 degrees Fahrenheit” ” in May! Near the Arctic! And this happened at the same time that “the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere eclipsed 415 parts per million for the first time in human history.”

---

--Percy

A pertinent article about a specific impact of climate change (but not addressing the causal issues) appeared in yesterday's Washington Post: Boston harbor brings ashore a new enemy: Rising seas. As a coastal city Boston is already experiencing the effects of climate change:

quote:

---

A surging sea could wreak havoc in a place where half the city is built on low-lying landfill. Among the vulnerable spots are commercial piers, Logan International Airport, low-income neighborhoods, the South End, the New England Aquarium and pricey apartment buildings in the newly redeveloped Seaport area. The effects are evident already; seawater at high tide has lapped up onto some streets even on days when the sun is shining.

---

--Percy

It was today reported that the International Energy Agency, an organization of 30 member states that includes most countries of North America and Europe, advised world nations to abandon fossil fuels as quickly as possible if we're to avoid the most calamitous effects of climate change (Nations Must Drop Fossil Fuels, Fast, World Energy Body Warns - The New York Times).--Percy

Is there any point to replying to this, or are you gone for six months?Anyway, your questions go off in directions that no one's proposing. You and your fellow Republicans hear that Democrats want to reduce reliance of fossil fuels, and you immediately jump to the conclusion that they want to directly regulate it's use, like your proposal to create essential and nonessential categories. Where I *can* see regulation playing a role is things like high-sulfur/low-heat content coal such as lignite, and so forth.But plans for reducing our reliance on fossil fuels consists of increasing our reliance on electricity and then making generation of that electricity just as clean and efficient as possible. It includes encouraging electric vehicle use by regular consumers, industry and government. Clean and efficient electricity generation will be encouraged. Great effort should be expended in this area because each power plant made more clean and efficient affects the carbon footprint of thousands of homes, businesses, cars (to the extent they're EV) and public transportation. More efficient power transmission should also be a priority. Tesla sells a nice solar-cell/battery combo where the solar cells sit on the roof send power to the house and batteries during the day, then the batteries power the house at night. A friend in Florida has this setup and loves it - he sells power to the grid and hasn't had a long enough run of cloudy days to have needed to draw power from the grid in a couple years. Of course, that's Florida. The further north you go the less satisfactory that approach would be.But the bottom line is that we're still going to require fossil fuels for electricity generation for decades to come because there won't be enough wind, solar and hydro for a long, long time. And we'll still require petroleum products for plastics (we have to reduce and eliminate this too because it's killing our environment, especially the oceans) and lubrication and a raft of other purposes. The last oil well won't close down in this century.But why love oil, Marc? What is it about oil that turned you into its big defender? Why do you seem to care so passionately where your power comes from, preferring that it come from the worst possible source for the environment. If tomorrow all your power suddenly started coming from wind and solar instead of gas and oil (which is possible, since power is fungible), why would you care?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.