Here's the NYT article about the emerging problems around gas stoves:

Tags: air, electrification, electrify, gas, health, quality

Views: 620

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I agree with Jeff,  it looks like you are cherry picking the data and your authors to validate your beliefs.    Looking for data to the data as you've done without also looking for the geological events (volcanoes, etc... ) and the whether or not mammals were on the earth at the time... is evidence of cherry picking.  The CO2 vs temps, human caused... is NOT something that 99% of the readers and followers on home energy pro's have sufficient educational training to accurately determine on their own true or false.  If you've got PhD's in the area mostly saying climate change is driven by CO2... do you have enough years of studying climate (not weather systems) and the corresponding academic education to make that determination.... then state your credentials and go forward.  But relying on piece meal tidbits or the writings of a meteorologist to determine true or false .... is a bad idea.  And honestly - it seems like the intent is to help spread bad info.

So I googled and in the first TWO hits,  first from NASA, and the second included --

"If climate scientists were claiming CO2 was the only driver of climate, then high CO2 during glacial periods would be problematic. But any climate scientist will tell you CO2 is not the only driver of climate. Climatologist Dana Royer says it best: "the geologic record contains a treasure trove of 'alternative Earths' that allow scientists to study how the various components of the Earth system respond to a range of climatic forcings." Past periods of higher CO2 do not contradict the notion that CO2 warms global temperatures. On the contrary, they confirm the close coupling between CO2 and climate.

Intermediate rebuttal written by John Cook"  from:

FWIW,  I am not fond of the push by some for the quick and blanket 100% conversion of existing houses from NG to electric systems.  Literally the grid across much of the US could not handle it... and contrary to many of those who suggest the quick conversion - the CO2 would likely increase because the source energy in much of the US is from coal... which is a much higher contributor to the CO2.

Long term its understanding how to make economy AND buildings  more efficient (the goal of this website) improving efficiency at the residence - no matter which source of energy is being used on site.... reduces the consumption of that energy and reduction in the contribution to GHG.  That's what we should be talking about.

First - in answer to your question - I am not a PhD climatologist. I work with PhD's and they come to me for a reality check. I worked directly with Klaus Dannenburg. You might Google him and his dad (Conrad Dannenburg who came over from Germany after WWII to work on the Apollo program). I have worked for NASA as a contractor but not on climate issues. I think that PhD's are useful but saying that nobody but PhD's have any credibility is folly. Remember the Wright brothers?  Yes, the Wright brothers that beat the "PhD Scientist of the time" Steven Langley to the first powered flight. Google it and you will probably find a picture of Langley's "aircraft" nose down in a river after being "launched" from a houseboat ( Claims need to be questioned no matter who made those claims.

The graph I posted above shows events that the author thought were important. Volcano and asteroid impacts, where known are shown by the green diamond marks. Keep in mind that going back millions of years makes  --> everything <-- questionable. The data itself is questionable because we are trying to reconstruct what happened before man recorded it. But the comment I was addressing was '7000 PPM CO2 and an ice age' was wrong. The author and the graph might be wrong. But I suspect both the author and the graph were thought to be the most accurate information available, regardless of if it supported a theory or refuted that same theory. Hmm, publishing the best data available regardless of the support / refute question - I think that is call good science. So is asking questions about what is considered "settled science". Remember Newton was considered to have settled 'everything' about orbits and gravity then some guys named Hubble, Einstein and others found that Newton's work was a good basis but still needed improvement to match actual measurements.

Which brings me to me point. The "anthropogenic global warming" may be a good basis. But the test data seems to my 'untrained non-PhD' eye to be deviating from the theory. It looks to me the theory needs some refinement to better match the data. I would not dismiss the theory completely until or unless the data shows that it is irrecoverably wrong. But similarly not try to take the current world back to the horse and buggy age (no cars, no airplanes and now I hear no cows) due to some theory that has some major questions in its validity. Claims that we are at a "point of no return" are part of what appears most questionable.

And my main point - I keep saying that people should make up their own mind. You appear to be looking for yourself and making your own conclusions. That is what I really want people to do. If you agree with me or disagree with me - we are all better off if people critically question and debate any topic.

Now back to energy efficiency...

One of the VERY first basic science principles that are taught is that "CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSATION"

Konrad Danneburg would have one to remind you of that,  as I believe his son would also.

Strong correlations can be the trigger for deeper data analysis to verify and truly understand what else might have happened, or be happening.    Joe Bastardi and you chart focus on correlation as being PROOF.   They are NOT!

Using correlation only for basis of designs,  resulted in man attaching wings to their backs so they looked like birds,  then jumping off cliffs to their deaths.   They hadn't look beyond the simple correlation to understand how the wings could cause a bird to fly.

You can ask the friends you named,   if there was a hardware failure of a space component,  did they use simple correlation to determine the true fault... or did they go further and identify all the events that were happening about that time and then process the data to truly determine the causation of the failure.   That's material science,  its basic good engineering practices,  ti's what was done after the Apollo 1 fire,  the Apollo 13 service module explosion,  its what is done for nearly every aircraft accident,  it's what was done with the shuttle accidents.   

Correlation is NOT causation!


I have an extremely hard time reading hyperbole and anti-science rhetoric. Climate science is very highly verifiable, and models have been consistently tightening up for decades, despite what people who have no idea what they are talking about say. Batteries exist, wind and solar exist. We need to get substantially off of fossil fuels. Efficiency and conservation are still very important concepts to strive for. Not having immediate remedies does not mean we ignore the problem.

I won't say you're a fool for being a climate denier, just that you're holding on to some need to push against truths that somehow impinge your sense of self. Good luck with that. 

Back to discussing stoves! I've managed to use my electric stove even less by putting things like beans and rice in an insulated container after getting hot and just letting them steep that way. My friend build a simple solar cooker and bakes cookies in her windowed foyer with it. Creativity opens doors. I'd rather have a PV array and use electricity than have explosive natural gas and an additional indoor health concern.  Most people use microwaves often anyway, considered more efficient than a stove for some kitchen needs.

If you use a stove in a well sealed building you will need make up air to keep building positive and hood to take out bad air.   Small hoods are just 300 CFM and under or about 50-100 CFM per Square foot -you can get by with opening a door or window when stove is on.   When larger high use stoves are installed I still use 50- 100 CFM per SF - just keep hood as low as can to keep power use down.   I add make up air if over 300 CFM to keep building positive. Then add heating or cooling to the make up air. 

You forgot to add, the obvious.  Charcoal filters for recirculating the stoves filtered exhaust back into kitchen does nothing to remove the CO2, CO, or NOx that is produced.  I may only remove some of the VOC's and  all depends on a hood having an effective and good capture range.



Latest Activity

Building Performance Association posted a blog post

August Policy & Advocacy Updates

By: Lizzie Bunnen, Government Affairs Director, AnnDyl Policy Group…See More
1 hour ago
Building Performance Association commented on Emily Ambrose's blog post 6 Building Conferences We’re Attending
"Great picks! Thanks for including us!"
1 hour ago
Building Performance Association liked Emily Ambrose's blog post 6 Building Conferences We’re Attending
1 hour ago
Diane Chojnowski's 2 videos were featured
5 hours ago
Brad Cook replied to Chris Stratton's discussion Okay to use 1" polyiso as a insulation base for 50 gallon heat pump water heater?
"Not all insulation is the same. For example, Dow's Super Tuf-R polyiso has a compression…"
7 hours ago
David Butler replied to David Wentling's discussion ERV recommendations
"@Luke, since you work for a well-known ERV manufacturer, I'm curious if you have access to…"
14 hours ago
Luke Langhals replied to David Wentling's discussion ERV recommendations
"Hello David -- Do you have an expected air tightness? What type of blower door test results are you…"
17 hours ago
Brad Cook replied to David Wentling's discussion ERV recommendations
"Many ERVs, particularly those with enthalpic wheels, use only ONE motor to run two fans. The In/Out…"
19 hours ago

© 2019   Created by Building Performance Association   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service