Climate and Weather

dad4 said:
Ideal?

We aren’t really in a spot to declare an ideal temperature curve. It’s really more about how many meters of sea level rise we get, and how quickly we get them.
Click to expand...
If you cannot even talk about what is good or bad temp wise
watfly said:
I end up back in the same place, nuclear energy as the primary solution on global warming, or we punt altogether and just work on clean air and clean water.
Click to expand...
I like to say if the gov really thought this was an emergency and action needed to be taken now....they would immediately start building nuke plants.

And the doom and gloom activists and environmentalists would be demanding nukes as well.

But they don't. That is telling.

And note again dad in his response to you above again only goes with the worst possible outcome...
 
dad4 said:
Every time you add another 100ppm of CO2, your semi-arid cities get too hot, and you need to move them as well.
Click to expand...
Ah our professor now states that every 100 ppm million will make cities get to hot.

Talk about making shit up. Nothing in the IPCC says that.

Again...only talking about worst case scenarios. Worst case scenario put forth in an unproven theory.

And talking about how much money to adapt cities, etc. Right now the world spends trillions a year on c02 mitigation and other green ideas without knowing they even work. How about using that money to make our infrastructure more resilient. Instead they offer up solar, etc which are unreliable on demand power sources that cost more, etc.
 
dad4 said:
Right now, it’s more about “can we gradually replace our coal plants with something that doesn’t cause massive coastal flooding?”
Click to expand...
I'm waiting to hear how we do that, particularly without nuclear (which is banned by the green new deal) and considering solar raises air temperatures.
 
watfly said:
I'm waiting to hear how we do that, particularly without nuclear (which is banned by the green new deal) and considering solar raises air temperatures.
Click to expand...
And I should also say solar relies on fossil fuels for their construction, wind energy the same as well as, needing fossil fuels for their operation.
 
watfly said:
Other points I was trying to make are, what is the benchmark and how do you measure the expected results of each of the proposed "green" actions. The philosophy seems to be doing something is better than nothing. However, when the doing something has significant negative socio-economic impacts, doing nothing might be the better approach, especially when we have no evidence that the "green" actions will even move the needle in fighting global warming. It seems the strategy is to hope programs like the Green New Deal combat climate change, but hope is never a good basis for making policy.

I end up back in the same place, nuclear energy as the primary solution on global warming, or we punt altogether and just work on clean air and clean water.
Click to expand...
Green new deal was an attempt to use “green” as a marketing gimmick for a whole Christmas tree of ideas. Don’t count me as a fan.

I’d rather just focus on power generation and personal transportation. Start building nuclear, wind, and solar installations. As you turn them on, start turning off our coal plants.
 
watfly said:
And I should also say solar relies on fossil fuels for their construction, wind energy the same as well as, needing fossil fuels for their operation.
Click to expand...
Absolutely. The question is how much diesel it takes to mine the copper for the gigawatt wind farm, compared to how much coal you save by turning off a gigawatt coal plant.

My understanding is that the diesel you spend is considerably less than the coal you save. If that’s not true, then don’t build it.
 
Desert Hound said:
Ah our professor now states that every 100 ppm million will make cities get to hot.

Talk about making shit up. Nothing in the IPCC says that.

Again...only talking about worst case scenarios. Worst case scenario put forth in an unproven theory.

And talking about how much money to adapt cities, etc. Right now the world spends trillions a year on c02 mitigation and other green ideas without knowing they even work. How about using that money to make our infrastructure more resilient. Instead they offer up solar, etc which are unreliable on demand power sources that cost more, etc.
Click to expand...
If you want to discuss this meaningfully, you need to accept a certain minimum set of facts.

CO2 raises average global temperatures. Higher CO2 means higher average temperatures.

If you don’t accept that much, none of this will make sense to you.
 
dad4 said:
If you want to discuss this meaningfully, you need to accept a certain minimum set of facts.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

Fact your 100ppm rise in CO2 will make cities unlivable is not based on any real data.
Manmade global warming being catastrophic is a theory and unproven
Models used by scientists today are in their infancy and have difficulty even retroactively explaining past climate

What PROOF do you have that warming will be catastrophic?
Why do you only focus on 1 potential outcome offered up by the theory.

Outside of the climate changing and getting warmer...what FACT do we know with certainly will happen in 2100?
 
watfly said:
Actually, for quite some time to come. There is no ripping the band-aid off when it comes to fossil fuels, it will be a many decades long process to transition to other energy sources and eliminate fossil fuels/petro chemicals...if even fully possible...which I doubt. It's never happening by 2050.
Click to expand...
We are basically 100% reliant on fossil fuels. It isn't just for power either. Almost every product we have has some type of petroleum byproduct in it or of course needs fossil fuels to produce/get it to market, etc.

Unlikely we really get rid of it as we are dependent on it for so much.

We can generate ALL the power we need for lights, ac and many other things by going nuclear.

Here is a list (produced by the US Dept of Energy) of just some of the products we use that are petroleum by product based. People dont realize how much the world depends on fossil fuels. Most people think just gasoline. We are far more reliant than that.

gas.png
 
Desert Hound said:
We are basically 100% reliant on fossil fuels. It isn't just for power either. Almost every product we have has some type of petroleum byproduct in it or of course needs fossil fuels to produce/get it to market, etc.

Unlikely we really get rid of it as we are dependent on it for so much.

We can generate ALL the power we need for lights, ac and many other things by going nuclear.

Here is a list (produced by the US Dept of Energy) of just some of the products we use that are petroleum by product based. People dont realize how much the world depends on fossil fuels. Most people think just gasoline. We are far more reliant than that.

View attachment 18038
Click to expand...
Considering all those fine products, it makes little sense to just burn it all up.
 
dad4 said:
Adaptation costs money, too. Can you imagine how much it would cost to build 3m dikes for every coastal city on earth? Or move the cities uphill?

Then even after you build all your dikes or move the coastal cities, some of your cities get too hot to live. You’ll need to move the hotter inland desert cities, too.

Even after you finish moving Riyadh and Kolkata, you‘re still not done. Every time you add another 100ppm of CO2, your semi-arid cities get too hot, and you need to move them as well.

This is not sounding like the cheaper option.
Click to expand...
dad4 said:
Green new deal was an attempt to use “green” as a marketing gimmick for a whole Christmas tree of ideas. Don’t count me as a fan.

I’d rather just focus on power generation and personal transportation. Start building nuclear, wind, and solar installations. As you turn them on, start turning off our coal plants.
Click to expand...
First post I've read from you that I believe you didn’t Google. I agree with most of it but I need to ask. How much do you know about wind generated power and the consequences, both intended or not.
 
Desert Hound said:
Fair enough.

Fact your 100ppm rise in CO2 will make cities unlivable is not based on any real data.
Manmade global warming being catastrophic is a theory and unproven
Models used by scientists today are in their infancy and have difficulty even retroactively explaining past climate

What PROOF do you have that warming will be catastrophic?
Why do you only focus on 1 potential outcome offered up by the theory.

Outside of the climate changing and getting warmer...what FACT do we know with certainly will happen in 2100?
Click to expand...
Some cities. Not all cities. Riyadh is getting close. Cairo is cooler, but will have trouble because slums are hard to air condition. Phoenix has quite a while.

Why do I focus on sea level? Because it’s the hardest to deny. Even you have to admit that snow and ice melt in warm weather.

Are there other impacts? Sure. But I have no reason to believe that bringing them up would result in an honest discussion, so I go for the one you can’t pretend doesn’t exist.
 
And speaking of sea level. About 27% of the Netherlands is below sea level. They started reclaiming land from the see in the 1500s...using of course that technology.

If you dont think in the modern world we can protect cities from a gradual rise in sea level...then you really are just fear mongering dad. The US gov predicts the sea will be 1-2 feet higher by 2100. That is vastly different from publications showing Central Park underwater.

I lay money that dealing with that level of rise is not much of a technical challenge...since we have been doing this stuff since at least the 1500s...see the Netherlands for an example.
 
dad4 said:
Adaptation costs money, too. Can you imagine how much it would cost to build 3m dikes for every coastal city on earth? Or move the cities uphill?

Then even after you build all your dikes or move the coastal cities, some of your cities get too hot to live. You’ll need to move the hotter inland desert cities, too.



This is not sounding like the cheaper option.
Click to expand...
Now you sound like Richard. Every coastal city.. a bit of hyperbole.

I'm thinking that Palos Verdes here in Socal would be just fine. Maybe Malibu as well?

Your friends over at NOAA are predicting the oceans will rise 1/8" per year. Maybe more of a lead by example is in order to show people how it's done instead of do as I say and not as I do. Not much faith in that.

So wind. What's the plan for all the used blades? That's a problem. Yea, you might want to look up what a take permit is, just in case your a fan of endangered species. Maybe sometime in the future two guys will be debating on what caused the extinction of eagles.
 
Desert Hound said:
And speaking of sea level. About 27% of the Netherlands is below sea level. They started reclaiming land from the see in the 1500s...using of course that technology.

If you dont think in the modern world we can protect cities from a gradual rise in sea level...then you really are just fear mongering dad. The US gov predicts the sea will be 1-2 feet higher by 2100. That is vastly different from publications showing Central Park underwater.

I lay money that dealing with that level of rise is not much of a technical challenge...since we have been doing this stuff since at least the 1500s...see the Netherlands for an example.
Click to expand...
NOAA predicts an 1/8" rise per year. So what's the plan. No more cows? No more Dogs? No more flying? Remember the energy crisis of the 70s? Getting gas based on your license plate? Doom and gloom..right? So do we fly based on our last name and only are allowed to have minature breeds and cats?
 
Multi Sport said:
Now you sound like Richard. Every coastal city.. a bit of hyperbole.

I'm thinking that Palos Verdes here in Socal would be just fine. Maybe Malibu as well?

Your friends over at NOAA are predicting the oceans will rise 1/8" per year. Maybe more of a lead by example is in order to show people how it's done instead of do as I say and not as I do. Not much faith in that.

So wind. What's the plan for all the used blades? That's a problem. Yea, you might want to look up what a take permit is, just in case your a fan of endangered species. Maybe sometime in the future two guys will be debating on what caused the extinction of eagles.
Click to expand...
Tell you what. Let's compare my plan for used windmill blades to your plan for the heavy metals in coal smoke.

The windmill blades go in landfills. The mercury bioaccumulates in seafood so we can eat it.

Which is worse?
 
dad4 said:
Tell you what. Let's compare my plan for used windmill blades to your plan for the heavy metals in coal smoke.

The windmill blades go in landfills. The mercury bioaccumulates in seafood so we can eat it.

Which is worse?
Click to expand...
Let's compare your plan three years ago regarding mask dad. Your plan killed people and now you want us to look at your windmill blades plan.
 
"Opps, I left out the truth."

California scientist says he ‘left out the full truth’ to get climate change wildfire study published (you do whatever you have to do to get your money)

These whack jobs make sh*t up and hope the earth cooks us all in 10 years. They will even start forest fires to prove their lie is true. I dealt with these science liars in grade school. They lie and make money lying about God, babies and the earth.


1694267169044.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top