Deaths from climate change

[cyrano]

You can believe what you want. I think it's not very smart to keep denying the many scientific papers about climate change. And of course, science has it's errors. One that showed up recently, is that the influence of volcanic eruptions is much more important than estimated before. It doesn't change the overall conclusions, though.

 

[JohnRoberts]

You can believe what you want. I think it's not very smart to keep denying the many scientific papers about climate change.

Have you read : "Unsettled", "False Alarm", "Fossil Future", and "Best things first". I am still working on reading that last Lomborg book.

And of course, science has it's errors.

Science has experiments and data. Conclusions can be erroneous.

One that showed up recently, is that the influence of volcanic eruptions is much more important than estimated before.

That is a well known phenomenon with objective measurements of global temperature changes (drops) after major eruptions. Intentional modification of the earth's albedo is a strategy being considered if we ever decide that we need to actively alter the globes temperature. Thankfully the real scientists have not gone that far yet (some are suspicious that visible vapor trails in the sky are evidence of secret experiments).

It doesn't change the overall conclusions, though.

There appear to be competing conclusions.

NYC has decided that it needs to filter the carbon out of wood and coal fired pizza oven exhausts to save the planet. This will impose millions of dollars expense on only about 100 small businesses, and not do anything substantive for the planet...

If serious maybe slow down some of the new coal power plants being built in China and India right now as we fiddle about.

There is only one planet and one shared atmosphere.

JR

 

[jabe]

No, climate activists are not coming for NYC pizza

 

[AnalogPackrat]

No, climate activists are not coming for NYC pizza

The fact that morons in government went after a few dozen restaurant ovens to reduce particulate emissions speaks volumes about their incredible lack of any sense of proportion. How much particulate pollution do those places produce compared to typical wildfires? To Chinese and Indian coal plants and other unregulated (w.r.t. emissions) heavy industry?

I recall an air quality study that was done in the Silicon Valley area some 20 years ago. The scientists analyzed actual air samples (possibly at multiple altitudes) over a period of time. As it turns out, a goodly proportion of particulate pollution was from restaurant exhaust (and not wood-fired grills). There's a lot of partially charred meat, fats, and oils floating around in the air from your favorite eateries.

So what do you do to reduce it? Do you cook at home? Do you only eat boiled or raw food? Have you stopped buying things made in China? Have you lobbied corporations and government to bring manufacturing back to countries that have some actual environmental controls? Or do you just ridicule people who rightly identify the hypocrisy of the "green" movement?

 

[living sounds]

The fact that morons in government went after a few dozen restaurant ovens to reduce particulate emissions speaks volumes about their incredible lack of any sense of proportion. How much particulate pollution do those places produce compared to typical wildfires? To Chinese and Indian coal plants and other unregulated (w.r.t. emissions) heavy industry?

It's understandable that you, living in the countryside, have no idea how bad air quality can be in the city next to one or more restaurants cooking at high temperatures. These days, emissions from traffic are much lower than what eminates from cooking zones burning fat and/or wood. And the scientific evidence on the detrimental effects of inhaling these particles is very clear. So yes, mandating filters here is a good idea.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

It's understandable that you, living in the countryside, have no idea how bad air quality can be in the city next to one or more restaurants cooking at high temperatures. These days, emissions from traffic are much lower than what eminates from cooking zones burning fat and/or wood. And the scientific evidence on the detrimental effects of inhaling these particles is very clear. So yes, mandating filters here is a good idea.

I lived in Sunnyvale, CA, the heart of Silicon Valley for almost six years. After I moved to the Santa Cruz Mountains I continued to commute to work in Silicon Valley (San Jose, Santa Clara, Mountain View, Los Altos, Fremont, etc.) for 22 more years. Your typical assumptions and ignorance about things outside Germany continues unabated.

 

[JohnRoberts]

No, climate activists are not coming for NYC pizza

Indeed somebody is lying... The multiple news article cite a rule "proposal".....

We have seen this dance before about gas stoves. The initial response from regulators was no we aren't doing that.... then, fossil fuels stoves and heaters are banned in new construction for buildings under 7 stories high by 2024, taller buildings 2027.

JR

 

[living sounds]

I lived in Sunnyvale, CA, the heart of Silicon Valley for almost six years. After I moved to the Santa Cruz Mountains I continued to commute to work in Silicon Valley (San Jose, Santa Clara, Mountain View, Los Altos, Fremont, etc.) for 22 more years. Your typical assumptions and ignorance about things outside Germany continues unabated.

Another ad hominem and nothing of substance on the issue.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Another ad hominem and nothing of substance on the issue.

An observation on your behavior. Tell me how much particulate pollution in Silicon Valley is from wood-fired pizza ovens (or even all restaurant cooking) relative to that from annual wildfires in the area or crap that blows across the Pacific from China. Your thinking is broken. You don't solve (alleged) big problems by focusing on the small contributors and ignoring the big ones.

I'll ask you, too, since you jumped in. What are you doing to reduce these types of pollution? Have you made any personal sacrifices?

 

[JohnRoberts]

why does everything turn into personal arguments? This place always had a handful of rouge players, but I don't recall it being this angry. I blame modern politics that demonizes each other as a strategy.

I prefer to view this place as a large family with distant relatives with different life experiences. We can learn a lot from each other if we don't shut down discussion. I'd like to think that we like each other but we don't have to, we should be civil.

JR

 

[AnalogPackrat]

why does everything turn into personal arguments? This place always had a handful of rouge players, but I don't recall it being this angry.

When someone from another country who has never spent significant time living in the US says this in direct response to me:

"It's understandable that you, living in the countryside, have no idea how bad air quality can be in the city next to one or more restaurants cooking at high temperatures."

After I've posted multiple times about where I've lived and worked, I will respond directly and bluntly. Nothing I said was profane or angry or mean-spirited. His assumptions about my "lived experience" were wrong. He tried to use that fallacious argument to ridicule the messenger. There's a repetitive pattern of this over the past year plus. It gets old.

 

[jabe]

Indeed somebody is lying... The multiple news article cite a rule "proposal".....

Not sure what other "proposal" you mean. I'd be interested in seeing that. Your initial complaint, in a longer statement about climate change, was that "NYC has decided that it needs to filter the carbon out of wood and coal fired pizza oven exhausts to save the planet". It would appear not after all.

The initial response from regulators was no we aren't doing that.... then, fossil fuels stoves and heaters are banned in new construction for buildings under 7 stories high by 2024, taller buildings 2027.

My understanding is that federal regulators responded that they weren't banning gas stoves. The new construction ban to which you refers is a NY state ban. NY regulators may have denied they were going to implement such a ban, but so far I can't find any evidence of that.

How much particulate pollution do those places produce compared to typical wildfires? To Chinese and Indian coal plants and other unregulated (w.r.t. emissions) heavy industry?

I am given to believe that NYC doesn't have much direct regulatory power over China or India.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Not sure what other "proposal" you mean. I'd be interested in seeing that.

do you have internet access? If you are interested you can search for it.

Your initial complaint, in a longer statement about climate change, was that "NYC has decided that it needs to filter the carbon out of wood and coal fired pizza oven exhausts to save the planet". It would appear not after all.

semantics... they are considering a proposal. Right now the court of public opinion and common sense is rejecting the concept.

My understanding is that federal regulators responded that they weren't banning gas stoves.

Who said "federal", while they are clearly opposed to fossil fuel use.

A commissioner with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is proposing a ban on gas stoves, calling them a "hidden hazard."

Later they walked this "trial ballon" back, but... I can't read minds but it seems like they are thinking about ways to do this. The massive climate spending bill included $Billions to subsidize substituting electric stoves for gas.

The new construction ban to which you refers is a NY state ban. NY regulators may have denied they were going to implement such a ban, but so far I can't find any evidence of that.

Politicians... go figure.

I am given to believe that NYC doesn't have much direct regulatory power over China or India.

No they don't (straw man?) and filtering the output of 100 pizza ovens in NYC will not make a significant difference to atmospheric carbon content. This is just feel good political posturing.

The feds are attacking gas stoves as a "health hazard"...

JR

 

[JohnRoberts]

When someone from another country who has never spent significant time living in the US says this in direct response to me:

Trust me I have a lot of practice responding to criticism of the US from other country's nationals. I try to think of how angry it makes me feel when I make observations about other people's home countries. Further anti-US media is not just a domestic thing... The Beeb and Deutsche Welle (DW) take pleasure from from showing embarrassing US stories, because it is entertaining to their audience. Some viewers think that is the full story.

"It's understandable that you, living in the countryside, have no idea how bad air quality can be in the city next to one or more restaurants cooking at high temperatures."

flawed mind reading?

After I've posted multiple times about where I've lived and worked, I will respond directly and bluntly. Nothing I said was profane or angry or mean-spirited. His assumptions about my "lived experience" were wrong. He tried to use that fallacious argument to ridicule the messenger. There's a repetitive pattern of this over the past year plus. It gets old.

We cannot ASSume about what he knows. We certainly have heard parts of you history multiple times. I am somewhat stereotyping him from other similar comments we have heard from other EU members.

We need to focus on objective facts or events, not what people think, or what we think people think.

I do not mean to single you out but you are responding as if I did. If I was to criticize specific comments of yours I would have quoted them and made specific observations nearby. My comments were intended broadly. It's hard to herd cats on the internets.

JR

 

[Matador]

why does everything turn into personal arguments? This place always had a handful of rouge players, but I don't recall it being this angry. I blame modern politics that demonizes each other as a strategy.

4. You will find that the members of this community are courteous and respectful of each other, so please reciprocate those gestures. Leave the flame-war mentality at another forum. Personal attacks and generally hateful comments (regarding race, religion, gender, sex, etc...) will not be tolerated.

 

[jabe]

do you have internet access? If you are interested you can search for it.

What rule proposal am I supposed to searching for? It wasn't clear to me from your brief comment.

semantics

Not at all. To state that "has decided" has a fundamentally different meaning than "is considering a proposal". "Save the planet" is quite different than "improve local air quality". Etc.

Politicians... go figure.

You are conflating a proposal from a single federal commissioner with the actions of New York state to claim that "they" are lying. It isn't enough to simply hand-wave that away with "politicians amiright?" Either someone provably lied or they didn't.

The feds are attacking gas stoves as a "health hazard"...

Not just the feds. The Health Risks of Gas Stoves Explained

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Not sure what other "proposal" you mean. I'd be interested in seeing that. Your initial complaint, in a longer statement about climate change, was that "NYC has decided that it needs to filter the carbon out of wood and coal fired pizza oven exhausts to save the planet". It would appear not after all.

The idea that this will make any difference at all is what is being challenged. Math. Try it.

My understanding is that federal regulators responded that they weren't banning gas stoves.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/09/business/gas-stove-ban-federal-agency/index.html
Thankfully this was killed in the House.

The new construction ban to which you refers is a NY state ban. NY regulators may have denied they were going to implement such a ban, but so far I can't find any evidence of that.

Yet CA already has. And California politicians firmly believe that "California leads the way!" Plenty of CA politicians now in DC.

I am given to believe that NYC doesn't have much direct regulatory power over China or India.

I never implied otherwise. Are you powerless except to hound your fellow citizens? Please. You can vote with your dollar (don't buy things made in China), vote for people who want to keep jobs and manufacturing in countries where there are sensible regulations, and reduce your own carbon footprint.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Sorry, John, but that doesn't show it's not related to climate change.

I've been following the science about the jetstream that makes our weather over here moderate. Without it, we would have a much cooler environment. It's known that the jetstream could change direction, which would be catastrophic for Europe. And it's known that global warming could cause this.

if you are referring to the "Gulf Stream" (ocean water flow) or Jet streams (atmospheric air flow patterns)? The gulf stream channels warmth up to the eastern north Atlantic.

I recall a popular science fiction movie about the "gulf stream" changing, years ago.

The same goes for El Niño.

climate and weather systems are constantly changing, always have and always will.

I can't get the article from the Wall Street Journal. It's behind a paywall. But I doubt that they concluded El Niño isn't influenced by climate change. On the contrary. Currents like El Niño and the jetstream are fundamental to weather prediction and climate change.

As I already posted rain storms broke the drought that was affecting the panama canal, but el nino pattern seems firmly entrenched. Following this over the years the transition between el nino and la nina can be sloppy with mini oscillations.

According to NOOA, climate change can influence jetstreams like El Niño both ways. But it is influenced by climate change. Only, we don't know which way it will be influenced.

I don't doubt that global warming can influence weather patterns. This is not an existential threat to humanity.

Besides, the past three years have been the driest in Panama since weather observations were recorded.

yup. Weather gets averaged over 30 years to be considered climate.

JR

 

[jabe]

The idea that this will make any difference at all is what is being challenged.

The idea that it is intended to make any difference on climate change is a straw man the right conjured up to have something to rant about.

Math. Try it.

Sigh...

Yet CA already has. And California politicians firmly believe that "California leads the way!" Plenty of CA politicians now in DC.

My point was that John was mixing up federal and New York regulations. I'm not clear how you think throwing California into the mix is a counterargument.

Are you powerless except to hound your fellow citizens? Please...

What's that got to do with NYC regulations?

 

[JohnRoberts]

The idea that it is intended to make any difference on climate change is a straw man the right conjured up to have something to rant about.


Sigh...


My point was that John was mixing up federal and New York regulations. I'm not clear how you think throwing California into the mix is a counterargument.

um no... but nice try see post #604

NYC has decided that it needs to filter the carbon out of wood and coal fired pizza oven exhausts to save the planet. This will impose millions of dollars expense on only about 100 small businesses, and not do anything substantive for the planet...

BTW "decided" as in intend, not legislated or mandated (yet).

What's that got to do with NYC regulations?

You appear to be the one conflating jurisdictions to make an imaginary point.

JR