Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[Orlando Tim]

2 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

The reef has always been recoverable. Plant and animal populations are recoverable. We know this. We've known this, despite whatever narrative you're referring to. I'm not saying you're in the wrong, I'm honestly not sure what specific narrative you mean. I assume bleached corral is permanently dead, or bleached, but it doesn't mean more can't grow.

 

Conservation efforts go a long way, but we can't stop the large natural events that cause the bleaching of the reef, IMO. This is a train that will keep on rolling and is a cyclical global process.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/scientists-work-to-save-coral-reefs-climate-change-marine-parks

 

The narrative has been the scientists need to be given funding and power to save the world, which as you say, nature will survive as long as we don't mess up too bad.

[LeGOATski]

21 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/scientists-work-to-save-coral-reefs-climate-change-marine-parks

 

The narrative has been the scientists need to be given funding and power to save the world, which as you say, nature will survive as long as we don't mess up too bad.

There's certainly plenty of hyperbole used on both sides, but nature definitely doesn't survive against man-made threats unless we make an effort. We're probably hastening the warming effects caused by natural climate change, but it's often overstated IMO. And our impact could be reversed, but even if we were successful at that, there will still be plenty of issues. I think we should be dumping money into technology that will allow us to leave Earth and colonize the universe. We're already making big strides there, but at the same time we can't just ignore our effects here on this planet.

[B-Man]

 

 

AL GORE HARDEST HIT: 

 

Arctic Sea Ice Prediction Reaches 12 Year Mid-August High.

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/08/13/doomsday-climate-predictions-meltdown-arctic-sea-ice-extent-reaches-12-year-mid-august-high/

 

 

 

.

[aristocrat]

 

[aristocrat]

 

[Andy1]

So what’s the worst that happens if after 50 years of climate adaption technology and policies we find out it was all for naught? Oh, our children and grand children get cleaner air, more efficient vehicles, cleaner energy and more efficient buildings. The horror! Earth is the only place we got to live for all of our future generations. Personally, I want my grandkids grandkids to have a place to live. 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

3 hours ago, Andy1 said:

So what’s the worst that happens if after 50 years of climate adaption technology and policies we find out it was all for naught? Oh, our children and grand children get cleaner air, more efficient vehicles, cleaner energy and more efficient buildings. The horror! Earth is the only place we got to live for all of our future generations. Personally, I want my grandkids grandkids to have a place to live. 

Makes sense, assuming you’ve already downsized to zero emission eco house, don’t drive or ride anything that’s not renewable powered electric, use no fossil fuels, consume zero animal protein and pay carbon offset taxes for your farts right?  The electricity that powered your post was from a solar farm as well? And your device is a recycled non lithium or plastic containing eco device? 
 

I mean put up or shut up right? For the grandkids! 

Edited August 18, 2022 by Over 29 years of fanhood

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

On 8/14/2022 at 6:23 AM, LeGOATski said:

There's certainly plenty of hyperbole used on both sides, but nature definitely doesn't survive against man-made threats unless we make an effort. We're probably hastening the warming effects caused by natural climate change, but it's often overstated IMO. And our impact could be reversed, but even if we were successful at that, there will still be plenty of issues. I think we should be dumping money into technology that will allow us to leave Earth and colonize the universe. We're already making big strides there, but at the same time we can't just ignore our effects here on this planet.

Beautiful - we think we can adapt to colonize inhospitable planets like mars but if earth gets a half a degree warmer in 150 years the world is over 😂 

 

this is just perfect 

[aristocrat]

8 hours ago, Andy1 said:

So what’s the worst that happens if after 50 years of climate adaption technology and policies we find out it was all for naught? Oh, our children and grand children get cleaner air, more efficient vehicles, cleaner energy and more efficient buildings. The horror! Earth is the only place we got to live for all of our future generations. Personally, I want my grandkids grandkids to have a place to live. 

nobody is saying they don’t want it. It’s how they’re doing it which is strange. 
 

there are giant plastic garbage islands in the ocean. Where is the funding to clean those?

germany was going to shut down their nuke plants and go back to gas and coal until people spoke up. Germany is supposedly leading this green charge. Why? 
 

why aren’t we building all nuke  plants and garbage fuel power plants(they produce half the emissions dumps do and have the benefit of power)

[ALF]

We need to be realistic and energy independent from the rest of the world.  The cost of electricity is already too high and switching everything to electric is not possible now.  Nuclear will be expensive but has to be one bridge to the future until we know if global warming is real .

[All_Pro_Bills]

27 minutes ago, ALF said:

We need to be realistic and energy independent from the rest of the world.  The cost of electricity is already too high and switching everything to electric is not possible now.  Nuclear will be expensive but has to be one bridge to the future until we know if global warming is real .

You should read "The Long Emergency".  Its about the coming end of the oil age and the resulting social, political, and economic implications.  Not to spoil the story but the author reached similar conclusion as you.  Until civilization develops and identifies a more efficient and productive source of energy, nuclear power is the best option to bridge the gap in time until that happens.

 

But since Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011 nuclear power plants have been under scrutiny.  Many of the reasons well justified.  And spent fuel rod processing and disposal is always a problem.  But as a society we've let 30+ years pass without addressing this potential solution.  And counter to this approach, countries like Germany have taken steps to decommission their nuclear power plants and putting their fate in the hands of renewables like solar and wind.  

 

Designing, permitting, constructing, and commissioning nuclear power plants is a decade, plus, long effort.  Likely longer given current regulatory and social obstacles.  Another issue is the US has little to no current Uranium production.  If we started now this solution might be able to be deployed around 2040 or 45. 

 

I don't see this happening.  It would require a massive investment and a quantum shift in policy away from renewables and deploying most of that committed capital and effort to nuclear.  It would be a politically unpopular proposal given the current administration.  Unfortunately, none of this is likely until 2024 at the earliest, and people generally need to experience an emergency or a disaster before they get moving on something.  So expect that first.  

 

 

 

 

Edited August 18, 2022 by All_Pro_Bills

[ALF]

Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011 , we've learned a lot since then. Chernobyl was a terrible and cheap Russian design, Fukushima was in the wrong location for a tidal wave. 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

9 hours ago, Andy1 said:

So what’s the worst that happens if after 50 years of climate adaption technology and policies we find out it was all for naught? Oh, our children and grand children get cleaner air, more efficient vehicles, cleaner energy and more efficient buildings. The horror! Earth is the only place we got to live for all of our future generations. Personally, I want my grandkids grandkids to have a place to live. 

UnoAndrew, the problem here is you seem to see the flip side of the Climate Doom Theory as Screw the Planet And Future Generations.  That’s silly.
 

Future generations are extraordinarily likely to look back and think “Wow, they fell for all that *&$#?”.   Balance, a healthy degree of skepticism, considering agenda, who gets paid, and where power is consolidated is always sensible.

 

 

 

 

[LeGOATski]

7 hours ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

Beautiful - we think we can adapt to colonize inhospitable planets like mars but if earth gets a half a degree warmer in 150 years the world is over 😂 

 

this is just perfect 

Case in point ☝️

[T master]

On 11/19/2014 at 7:23 PM, Very wide right said:

Whatever they are calling this boogieman these days,as we were shoveling today during the record national cold wave my neighbor had a good point.When I was in high school (1980) my ultra lib environmental science teacher assured the students in my class that there was an impending ice age. A few years after I graduated from HS I heard a few teenagers talking about global warming in a book store.I did some research and I quickly realized the same thing my neighbor said today.Well before the industrial period in the world had started the worlds ice that covered most of the continent had melted during a warming period.Obviously that warming was not caused by man because the industrial era was not existent at that point so it was a natural cycle.

 

Man caused global warming/climate change is nothing more than a boogieman created by the left in this country and now the world to control policy.Furthermore whenever a scientist pushes this agenda one only has to Google their name and you'll soon discover that that scientist is financed by some government entity.I also discovered a couple of years ago that many scientists have been caught skewing data because the numbers didn't match their hysterical agenda.

 

 

 

This might be part of the problem include man & the gov't in anything & you can be guaranteed it's going to get screwed up !! 

11 hours ago, aristocrat said:

 

 

 

[aristocrat]

 

[aristocrat]

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

                                           

 

 

 

 

 

.

[ALF]

The world's first hydrogen-powered passenger trains are here

The future of environmentally friendly travel might just be here -- and it's Germany that's leading the charge, with the first ever rail line to be entirely run on hydrogen-powered trains, starting from Wednesday.

 

The trains are emissions-free and low-noise, with only steam and condensed water issuing from the exhaust. They have a range of 1,000 kilometers (621 miles), meaning they can run for an entire day on the network on a single tank of hydrogen. A hydrogen filling station has already been established on the route. The trains can go at a maximum of 140 kph, or 87mph, though regular speeds on the line are much less, between 80-120 kph.

 

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/coradia-ilint-hydrogen-trains/index.html

[aristocrat]

 

[Orlando Tim]

On 8/24/2022 at 7:59 AM, ALF said:

The world's first hydrogen-powered passenger trains are here

The future of environmentally friendly travel might just be here -- and it's Germany that's leading the charge, with the first ever rail line to be entirely run on hydrogen-powered trains, starting from Wednesday.

 

The trains are emissions-free and low-noise, with only steam and condensed water issuing from the exhaust. They have a range of 1,000 kilometers (621 miles), meaning they can run for an entire day on the network on a single tank of hydrogen. A hydrogen filling station has already been established on the route. The trains can go at a maximum of 140 kph, or 87mph, though regular speeds on the line are much less, between 80-120 kph.

 

https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/coradia-ilint-hydrogen-trains/index.html

Hydrogen power would be superior but part of the issue is the cost to convert the infrastructure and other elements. If we all agreed that hydrogen was the future and committed to it the cost of the entire transformation would be recouped eventually but it would take decades at a minimum. I will be very interested in how this whole things works and whether it is on budget or not. I hope it runs well because more options would be good.

[ALF]

Grim story if true for the future.

 

The World’s Energy Problem Is Far Worse Than We’re Being Told

No politician wants to tell us the real story of fossil fuel depletion. The real story is that we are already running short of oil, coal and natural gas because the direct and indirect costs of extraction are reaching a point where the selling price of food and other basic necessities needs to be unacceptably high to make the overall economic system work. At the same time, wind and solar and other “clean energy” sources are nowhere nearly able to substitute for the quantity of fossil fuels being lost.

 

This unfortunate energy story is essentially a physics problem. Energy per capita and, in fact, resources per capita, must stay high enough for an economy’s growing population. When this does not happen, history shows that civilizations tend to collapse.

 

Politicians cannot possibly admit that today’s world economy is headed for collapse, in a way similar to that of prior civilizations. Instead, they need to provide the illusion that they are in charge. The self-organizing system somehow leads politicians to put forward reasons why the changes ahead might be desirable (to avert climate change), or at least temporary (because of sanctions against Russia).

 

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/The-Worlds-Energy-Problem-Is-Far-Worse-Than-Were-Being-Told.html

 

Texas, home of Eagle Ford, Permian and Barnett shale oil plays, holds more than 60 billion barrels of shale oil alone, Rystad estimates. That is more than the untapped oil in all of China. There are also vast sums of oil beneath the ground in North Dakota, where the Bakken shale oil play sits. Plus oil in Alaska
 

[SoCal Deek]

2 hours ago, ALF said:

Grim story if true for the future.

 

The World’s Energy Problem Is Far Worse Than We’re Being Told

No politician wants to tell us the real story of fossil fuel depletion. The real story is that we are already running short of oil, coal and natural gas because the direct and indirect costs of extraction are reaching a point where the selling price of food and other basic necessities needs to be unacceptably high to make the overall economic system work. At the same time, wind and solar and other “clean energy” sources are nowhere nearly able to substitute for the quantity of fossil fuels being lost.

 

This unfortunate energy story is essentially a physics problem. Energy per capita and, in fact, resources per capita, must stay high enough for an economy’s growing population. When this does not happen, history shows that civilizations tend to collapse.

 

Politicians cannot possibly admit that today’s world economy is headed for collapse, in a way similar to that of prior civilizations. Instead, they need to provide the illusion that they are in charge. The self-organizing system somehow leads politicians to put forward reasons why the changes ahead might be desirable (to avert climate change), or at least temporary (because of sanctions against Russia).

 

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/The-Worlds-Energy-Problem-Is-Far-Worse-Than-Were-Being-Told.html

 

Texas, home of Eagle Ford, Permian and Barnett shale oil plays, holds more than 60 billion barrels of shale oil alone, Rystad estimates. That is more than the untapped oil in all of China. There are also vast sums of oil beneath the ground in North Dakota, where the Bakken shale oil play sits. Plus oil in Alaska
 

Thanks for sharing. I’ve often surmised the same thing. The problem isn’t going to be ‘climate change’. The problem is going to be a flat out energy shortage. I’m certainly no expert in the field but I always thought they should’ve invested way more research into nuclear. 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

On 9/1/2022 at 9:21 AM, SoCal Deek said:

Thanks for sharing. I’ve often surmised the same thing. The problem isn’t going to be ‘climate change’. The problem is going to be a flat out energy shortage. I’m certainly no expert in the field but I always thought they should’ve invested way more research into nuclear. 

I see the issue boiling down to one concept: Productivity.  The ability to produce greater output at lower costs and higher efficiency.   Technology has reached the point of demising returns and renewable sources that are less efficient and more costly have western civilization headed in the other direction.  The implication is a lower standard of living and a general social and economic decline.  Big jumps in energy output and efficiency from the fields of physics and advanced technology like fusion are still decades, if at all, away,    

[aristocrat]

Get ***** Greta 

[yall]

On 9/1/2022 at 9:21 AM, SoCal Deek said:

Thanks for sharing. I’ve often surmised the same thing. The problem isn’t going to be ‘climate change’. The problem is going to be a flat out energy shortage. I’m certainly no expert in the field but I always thought they should’ve invested way more research into nuclear. 

The very people that have been preaching climate doom will be the same ones who bear some responsibility in bringing it about by being so wholly opposed to nuclear.

[aristocrat]

 

[TH3]

2 hours ago, yall said:

The very people that have been preaching climate doom will be the same ones who bear some responsibility in bringing it about by being so wholly opposed to nuclear.

It was 116 degrees in Sacramento yesterday

[SoCal Deek]

23 minutes ago, TH3 said:

It was 116 degrees in Sacramento yesterday

And? 

[Tiberius]

55 minutes ago, TH3 said:

It was 116 degrees in Sacramento yesterday

These heat waves are outrageous 

[aristocrat]

1 hour ago, TH3 said:

It was 116 degrees in Sacramento yesterday

 

Broke the previous high of 114 which was set in...1925.  Have we decided what was happening back then?

[Chef Jim]

42 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

These heat waves are outrageous 

And we must do something!!  
 

Superman!!  Move the earth father from the sun!!

 

Nothing can be done. So enjoy the wonderful warm weather.  

10 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

 

Broke the previous high of 114 which was set in...1925.  Have we decided what was happening back then?

The hottest temp ever recorded on earth was 134 in Death Valley in…….1913. 

[Tiberius]

20 minutes ago, Bandito said:

Crops grow better in hot climates. So in theory this is better for society. More food for us all around the world!

 

It is also called SUMMMMMMMMMERRRRRR

Which crops? 

[The Frankish Reich]

1 hour ago, Bandito said:

Crops grow better in hot climates.

Tell that to my spring peas that withered and died when May brought July like temps. 
 I assume that this is not 100% serious. But you do have a point - climate change is extending growing seasons in areas that were previously pretty marginal for agriculture. That partially offsets the loss of other agricultural production in lower latitudes. But I don’t think you’ll find anyone arguing that this is a net gain. 

[The Frankish Reich]

On 9/1/2022 at 7:21 AM, SoCal Deek said:

I always thought they should’ve invested way more research into nuclear

Agreed. If only we could turn back the clock to about 1980 to start all over again. That was the age of “no nukes” that really took off after Three Mile Island. When nuclear was largely abandoned, the US (and then the world) turned sharply toward fossil fuels again. The risks of nuclear failure were immediate and obvious: potential meltdowns (really only one - Chernobyl - has ever happened), problems storing waste, etc. The risks of fossil fuels were distant and diffuse, but potentially much greater in impact. 
 

[aristocrat]

6 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Agreed. If only we could turn back the clock to about 1980 to start all over again. That was the age of “no nukes” that really took off after Three Mile Island. When nuclear was largely abandoned, the US (and then the world) turned sharply toward fossil fuels again. The risks of nuclear failure were immediate and obvious: potential meltdowns (really only one - Chernobyl - has ever happened), problems storing waste, etc. The risks of fossil fuels were distant and diffuse, but potentially much greater in impact. 
 

 

It's not too late. Gates has a company called Terrapower that have some real advanced tech where they have the ability to use spent rods so no storage. They also dont need any power to keep the nuke cool which lowers the risk of meltdown and they are much cheaper to build. Also, need to go with waste to power plants which can be built quick and create half the pollution a waste dump uses plus you dont have to ship the waste to china to just bury 

[Precision]

7 hours ago, aristocrat said:

 

It's not too late. Gates has a company called Terrapower that have some real advanced tech where they have the ability to use spent rods so no storage. They also dont need any power to keep the nuke cool which lowers the risk of meltdown and they are much cheaper to build. Also, need to go with waste to power plants which can be built quick and create half the pollution a waste dump uses plus you dont have to ship the waste to china to just bury 

In addition to Terrapower there are a number of initiatives in the US and internationally to deploy Molten Salt/Molten Sodium Reactors.  The underlying technology is mature and dates back to experiments in the 50's/60's.  Everyone gets excited about incremental improvements in Fusion, but this technology is mature and is the near-term future for nuclear.  Will be interesting to see how this is deployed and the impact between it and renewables.  If this technology was cheap and safe enough, would we even go to the trouble of renewables? 

 

Some interesting reading.....

Molten salt reactor

[B-Man]

 

 

“CLIMATE CHANGE” ISN’T TURNING OUT AS ADVERTISED: 

 

This should be the absolute peak of hurricane season—but it’s dead quiet out there. “Everyone from the US agency devoted to studying weather, oceans, and the atmosphere—the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration—to the most highly regarded hurricane professionals predicted a season with above-normal to well above-normal activity. . . .

 

Perhaps what is most striking about this season is that we are now at the absolute peak of hurricane season, and there is simply nothing happening.”

 

 

 

Now eventually there will be a storm or two, but doomsday narrative has been disproven.

 

.  https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/09/this-should-be-the-absolute-peak-of-hurricane-season-but-its-dead-quiet-out-there/

 

 

.

Edited September 12, 2022 by B-Man

[B-Man]