2 weeks ago Vegas had just had the longest stretch between 100 degree days. This week it is blistering hot. 2 years ago there was no snow in the west. This year had the heaviest snowfall in years.
It is called the weather & it not always consistent
2 weeks ago Vegas had just had the longest stretch between 100 degree days. This week it is blistering hot. 2 years ago there was no snow in the west. This year had the heaviest snowfall in years.
It is called the weather & it not always consistent
Originally posted by: tom
2 weeks ago Vegas had just had the longest stretch between 100 degree days. This week it is blistering hot. 2 years ago there was no snow in the west. This year had the heaviest snowfall in years.
It is called the weather & it not always consistent
What an idiot, to not understand the difference between weather and climate, yet to offer a ludicrously uninformed opinion on the subject.
A major aspect of climate change is an increase in both the frequency and magnitude of extreme events--heat AND cold, heavy precipitation AND drought.
It's kind of sad and funny that the events that stupid Tommie-poo mentions confirm climate change--and he thinks they disprove it.
Stupid fucking moron Tommie-poo.
Originally posted by: Charles Higgins
We'll eventually know what 'reality' is, I guess. So far, a lot of it has been one large volume of fiction based on professed events of anticipated crises related to climate change. I'm certainly agreeable to look at real facts surrounding this issue, but I see very little of those within the subsets of CC issues we've discussed in this thread. If I'm completely off in left field with this attitude, then eventually I may just spontaneously combust thereby rendering my stances erroneous and meaningless. I'm willing to experience that ahead of being slammed with some gigantic carbon tax of some sort. No more green chile for me...asses to ashes, dust to dust.
Are humans smart enough to control / mediate climate and weather..or the related effects? I don't think so..beyond some reasonable approach to squelch emissions. I ask again, how are they / you going to whip the natural weather / climate cycles? As I asked earlier in the thread, how are these climate scientists going to control the blanket of water vapor that naturally surrounds our globe ( accumulated via condensation and evaporation of our oceans and assorted weather events) and acts as a true and critical 'greenhouse gas'? That'll mean we'll have to experience the largest worldwide tax increase in history as they figure out a way to nuke it? I don't want to play that game. But you can..and thereby cancel any input I might have on the subject. Problem solved..at least in that one-on-one microenvironment.
If you want to talk about specifically water vapor, water is earth's primary energy transfer medium. Its presence hasn't been affected by human activity, nor have those energy transfer mechanisms--aka climate and weather. What has been affected is the volatility of that mechanism.
So do we have the ability to reverse or at least mitigate the recent increase in that volatility?
The answer is tentatively "yes." Previous thought has been that there might be engineering solutions, such as cloud seeding and so forth. However, we're unable at present to implement such solutions on the required scale, at least not without huge costs and massive disruptions. But there are better solutions, based on bioengineering, which can be almost ridiculously cheap and easy to implement. These solutions are the product of decades of profound and extensive study and are still a work in progress.
There's one thing I know. Those solutions wouldn't have been found if we had stuck our heads in the sand, or if we had persisted in the cowardly act of merely shortening our event horizon. "Who cares, I'll be dead" is a profoundly selfish and immoral statement.
And there's another thing I know. There isn't a problem in the long history of mankind that has proved incapable of a solution--if mankind wants to solve it badly enough.
The technology and engineering are comparatively trivial problems. It's a matter of will, not capability.
Originally posted by: PJ Stroh
Its funny how you're having this conversation in the midst of the hottest week on historical record and yet another insurance company said they will no longer provide coverage in Florida.
There isnt a debate amongst scientists. The only debate is between scientists and the right wing rabble that offered up Ivermectin as a cure for COVID. It would seem laughable the latter seems to have so much street cred but they certainly do. Tom is proof.
Yes, it's hotter than jalepeno pepper capsaicin oil. They say it's supposed to be the hottest summer on record..ever..I experience it daily in my area...it is miserable to work in. Those are facts, currently. How do we control it, though? The general consensus among CC proponents say we have to reduce CO2 emissions by roughly 50% by 2030..and get to net zero emissions by 2050 (those are the 'goals of the Green New Deal folks). Do you think net zero emissions in 25 years is a sane approach? Or, is that just a proposed lofty goal so that we can partially achieve it and attain some undefined CO2 level that nobody seems to know what the desired endpoint actually is? I
In order to achieve these goals, it's necessary to eliminate all forms of fossil fuels as energy sources, they portend. How is it going to be accomplished..what are the processes? Info on those prospective processes are pretty scant. And, ultimately, what's the costs? Is it the proposed wild guess amount of $93 trillion put out by R reps? More / less? I'll bet it's more because I don't know how much of that wild guess amount includes the complete retrofitting/ dismantling of the entire current energy infrastructure associated with gasoline and diesel powered vehicles in this country. What will it cost to shut down all the gas stations/ truck stops/ associated fuel storage and transfer infrastructures? Can our national debt and deficit stand such a proposed onslaught? And further, what are the eventual economic returns on investment of this proposed cost portfolio?
I could tolerate some of the carbon capture and storage processes that Exxon Mobil is already practicing on some scale. That process seems somewhat efficient and somewhat affordable. Many of the other proposed goals and scantly revealed methods to achieve their desired endpoints are unforeseeable..and some are just flat insane. (IMO). I get the idea of a cleaner future with renewable resources and the like; we can't do it in the allotted time frame, and we sure can't afford it as I see it. In the end, what I think won't matter because there's an entire machine of funding and governmental / worldwide mindset that is already in place as we speak..and they all want the dismantling of the fossil fuel industry. I'll likely croak or be disposed of before they get it done, though. That gives me some peace *l*.
One more huge CC point. What are we going to do with / for airplane energy and fuel resources? AOC's Green New Deal Proposal ( that didn't pass Congress) used the wording "working towards ending air travel" by 2050; can you picture our Congress members not flying somewhere? So, they left that pretty vague in the wording..the lazy drips. They're supposedly pushing high speed rails as a replacement mode of transportation. Mo money/
Are we just going to ground airplanes on some unspecified date within the next 25 years, and then spend a few more trillion bailing out the airlines? If so, one would further have to factor in the opportunity costs of shutting down air travel for all the associated business purposes that rely on air travel. That's insane as well. John Kerry and his ilk are going to be pissed about that, too..for selfish reasons. Course, he's older than I am..he might not be around if and when it happens anyway.
Carry on..I'm just going to find a building to jump off of ( in my mind). Have fun.
Originally posted by: Charles Higgins
Yes, it's hotter than jalepeno pepper capsaicin oil. They say it's supposed to be the hottest summer on record..ever..I experience it daily in my area...it is miserable to work in. Those are facts, currently. How do we control it, though? The general consensus among CC proponents say we have to reduce CO2 emissions by roughly 50% by 2030..and get to net zero emissions by 2050 (those are the 'goals of the Green New Deal folks). Do you think net zero emissions in 25 years is a sane approach? Or, is that just a proposed lofty goal so that we can partially achieve it and attain some undefined CO2 level that nobody seems to know what the desired endpoint actually is? I
In order to achieve these goals, it's necessary to eliminate all forms of fossil fuels as energy sources, they portend. How is it going to be accomplished..what are the processes? Info on those prospective processes are pretty scant. And, ultimately, what's the costs? Is it the proposed wild guess amount of $93 trillion put out by R reps? More / less? I'll bet it's more because I don't know how much of that wild guess amount includes the complete retrofitting/ dismantling of the entire current energy infrastructure associated with gasoline and diesel powered vehicles in this country. What will it cost to shut down all the gas stations/ truck stops/ associated fuel storage and transfer infrastructures? Can our national debt and deficit stand such a proposed onslaught? And further, what are the eventual economic returns on investment of this proposed cost portfolio?
I could tolerate some of the carbon capture and storage processes that Exxon Mobil is already practicing on some scale. That process seems somewhat efficient and somewhat affordable. Many of the other proposed goals and scantly revealed methods to achieve their desired endpoints are unforeseeable..and some are just flat insane. (IMO). I get the idea of a cleaner future with renewable resources and the like; we can't do it in the allotted time frame, and we sure can't afford it as I see it. In the end, what I think won't matter because there's an entire machine of funding and governmental / worldwide mindset that is already in place as we speak..and they all want the dismantling of the fossil fuel industry. I'll likely croak or be disposed of before they get it done, though. That gives me some peace *l*.
That's an "all or nothing" argument and not even close to valid. We don't utterly fail if we don't meet those goals. There will still be benefit in trying and partially succeeding.
It's an exaggeration to say that the entire fuel/transportation infrastructure will have to be torn apart and rebuilt. What's there can be used with modifications. It already is in many places. Sure, it'll cost. But not doing it will cost far more. That's the core point of the argument, and one I wish that you and all of the naysayers would acknowledge/comprehend. It's those gold-durn negative externalities. Just because we've fobbed off the costs of our fossil fuel-fueled lifestyle doesn't mean those costs don't exist.
It's something we must do. And surely you at least realize that it's something we'll inevitably be forced to do no matter what. Only so many dead dinosaurs down there.
Originally posted by: Charles Higgins
One more huge CC point. What are we going to do with / for airplane energy and fuel resources? AOC's Green New Deal Proposal ( that didn't pass Congress) used the wording "working towards ending air travel" by 2050; can you picture our Congress members not flying somewhere? So, they left that pretty vague in the wording..the lazy drips. They're supposedly pushing high speed rails as a replacement mode of transportation. Mo money/
Are we just going to ground airplanes on some unspecified date within the next 25 years, and then spend a few more trillion bailing out the airlines? If so, one would further have to factor in the opportunity costs of shutting down air travel for all the associated business purposes that rely on air travel. That's insane as well. John Kerry and his ilk are going to be pissed about that, too..for selfish reasons. Course, he's older than I am..he might not be around if and when it happens anyway.
Carry on..I'm just going to find a building to jump off of ( in my mind). Have fun.
I wouldn't miss the (fucking) airlines. Case in point: driving from San Francisco to Las Vegas: 10 hours. Direct rail journey (via a line that doesn't exist yet): 8 hours. Airline trip, point to point: 9 hours, if you're $%$#@ lucky.
I suppose the airline companies will do what the stagecoach companies did in 1900: adapt or perish. Isn't that sacred Darwinistic capitalism?
