Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Environmentalism and Global Warming Thread

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Snowygerry View Post
    I suspect this thread will grow so big it will cause global temperature to rise by several degrees all by itself
    Texas Power & light is building a new coal fired plant to cover the anticipated server overloads...
    The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

    Comment


    • Originally posted by marktwain View Post

      Texas Power & light is building a new coal fired plant to cover the anticipated server overloads...
      And being in the USA, and West in general EPA regulations of over 40 years duration will require it include a Flue-Gas Desulfurization; FGD; scrubber system to remove sulfur dioxide, a real pollutant which becomes sulfuric acid once in the atmosphere and chemically combined(reacts with) water vapor (cause of acid rain).
      ...
      As stringent environmental regulations regarding SO2 emissions have been enacted in many countries, SO2 is now being removed from flue gases by a variety of methods. Below are common methods used:
      For a typical coal-fired power station, flue-gas desulfurization (FGD) may remove 90 percent or more of the SO2 in the flue gases.
      ...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flue-gas_desulfurization (and yes, I know, per "expert" Massena Wiki isn't a valid source to cite, but then he likely never bother to check the references cited at the bottom of the wiki articles ... )

      Certain supposed developed nations like India and China whom are extensive users of coal for electric generation rarely bother with FGD scrubbers for their plants, hence do incur significant SO2 'pollution'.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by marktwain View Post
        what ELUDES ME IS :
        why you refuse to visit the NOAA website for your answers

        the bolded seems somewhat bellicose, and has no relation to what I wrote.
        a simple home experiment in Molecular resonance.
        Deep freeze an ice cube, and place it with insulated tongs in - your microwave. the microwaves will not melt the cube, until the ambient air converts ice to water, which will heat- then melt the ice.
        the resonance of molecular water changes when the cube freezes.

        Having a somewhat titchy day, are we?.
        Total relation since the other 99.96% of atmosphere, non-CO2 portion is also heating and claim is that it's heat retention of CO2 is the mechanism.

        Comment


        • [QUOTE=marktwain;n5128873]
          Originally posted by G David Bock View Post

          What eludes me is why you won't point out WHAT within that site you think I should consider and apply towards the point you want ot make.
          I've been there and through it many times and I see an agenda to preserve an agency and jobs, chasing funding/dollar$ designed to "prove" ACC/AGW, NOT engage objective science and hence see little objective relevancy to the site.



          A "simple home experiment" is to take a two liter soda bottle of two litters water at 70 degrees F. and add to it about an quarter teaspoon=0.8ml of water at 75 degrees F. and note how much it raises the temp. of the rest of the two litters in the bottle ...



          Please explain better how this relates to one part of 2,500 CO2 transfers heat to the other 2,499 other element molecules in the atmosphere ...



          Having a lot lately with other organizational demands on my time, plus home yard/garden/household chores and limited patience with obscure and imprecise science references, etc. ...



          W
          [/QUOTE
          W
          ell - this was the "trout fishing in 'Yellowstone park' and associated recipes thread', so one shouldn't be surprised if a discussion of "litters of soda water' sort of, like, dies on the table...

          Be sure to have your soda bottle experiment peer reviewed and published in a reputable scientific journal. The NOAA may be able to aid you with this' if you ask nicely…..

          My "peer review" sort was back here, @ post #1103;
          https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...17#post5127217
          The "soda bottle" home experiment is a "Bill Nye, he's NOT a science guy" sort of basic one to illustrate the false concept behind ACC/AGW.

          A reminder, if you insist on NOAA website, please be specific as to which of their hundreds of articles you think is relevant to your point/position.

          Comment




          • Sign Up
            The costs of inaction have been clear in broad terms for a while now. The Stern Review, a massive 2006 publication covering all aspects of climate economics, arrived at an eventual annual loss of between five and twenty percent of the global GDP, which would run into the tens of trillions of dollars. More recently, however, researchers have started to tease out some fairly specific costs associated with inaction—and the numbers aren’t pretty.

            The Climate Impact Lab, a consortium of researchers and experts (including Jina), published a paper in the journal Science almost two years ago that modeled the costs associated with things like agricultural output decline, mortality due to temperature extremes, and increases in electricity demand. They found that by the end of the century, the U.S. could be losing between one and four percent of its GDP—or a few trillion dollars, most likely—every single year. The estimated impact was geographically varied: Some parts of the country might fare better, losing little or none of its GDP, while others could be losing hundreds of billions every year.

            A paper published in Nature Climate Change last month got into even more detail. In a high-end warming scenario, there would be $26 billion in annual losses due to worsened air quality by 2090; $140 billion due to temperature-related deaths; another $160 billion in lost labor; and $120 billion in yearly damage to coastal property. That was just four of the 22 sectors—and we’ve already reached almost $450 billion in damages every year.

            There’s more. Changes to electricity demand and supply would cost $9.2 billion per year. Damage to rail systems would cost $5.5 billion, and throw in more than $21 billion more for roads and bridges. Increased rainfall totals will stress urban drainage systems, to the tune of $5.6 billion per year. The mosquito-borne West Nile virus will expand its range dramatically, costing $3.3 billion. Inland flooding will cost $8 billion more, along with $4.6 billion due to water quality issues, and $2 billion in lost winter recreation revenue. Damage to various ecosystems will carry extreme costs, from $3.1 billion in damage to freshwater fish stocks to $4.1 billion in losses on coral reefs.

            All told, the study suggests, largely unchecked warming would cost about $520 billion dollars across these sectors every year by 2090. If we manage to stave off the worst and instead settle on a more middle-of-the-road amount of warming, that would save $225 billion of that total.

            As with most areas of climate science, every new study paints a more dire picture. Research just published in Nature Communications tried to update the computer models commonly used in projecting some of these economic impacts to better reflect reality. Specifically, it incorporated some particularly ghastly climate feedback loops, including carbon released from thawing permafrost in the Arctic and reductions in the planet’s ability to reflect sunlight back into space as ice and snow continue to melt.

            With those updated models, the study found that economic losses from climate change would be almost $70 trillion higher than previously estimated for the 2 degrees Celsius warming scenario—the limit that most countries are aiming for in their Paris Climate Agreement pledges. If the world managed to reduce emissions to a far greater degree—and thus hit the extremely ambitious 1.5-degree target—then this additional cost would decrease from $70 trillion down to a mere $24.8 trillion, the study found.

            Yet another study found that even without taking into account the economic toll of climate change, a business-as-usual scenario would be more expensive than the strict cost of aggressive climate policies. A 2015 report by Citi GPS, the research arm of Citi, found that an “inaction scenario” where we just build the same way we’ve been building would cost $192 trillion out to 2040 on electricity, transportation, and other trappings of modern life. The “action” scenario, meanwhile, where we build solar and wind power instead of coal and natural gas and switch out the automobile fleet and so on, would cost $190.2 trillion.

            “We have to replace quite a lot of our coal-fired power plants with something within the next 20 years,” said Geoffrey Heal, a professor at Columbia University Business School, who has modeled the costs of transitioning to a clean energy supply by 2050. “In some sense, the cost of replacing them isn’t an additional cost. We would have to invest hundreds of billions of dollars in replacing power plants as they die.”

            The difference between the “action” and “inaction” scenarios may seem small, but the huge difference is that an “action scenario” actually makes money. A 2018 study by Greek researchers found a correlation between increasing renewable energy use and higher GDP; they concluded that “policy-makers … should take all the needed measures to increase [renewable energy sources] contribution to the energy mix.” A report from the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate found that “bold action” could result in a direct economic gain of $26 trillion by 2030—a likely underestimation.

            Specific policies supporting renewable energy would offer clear economic benefits. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory found that a “high-end” renewable energy standard could increase jobs in the sector—which already employs close to a million people in the U.S.—by 47 percent. The aforementioned Global Commission report found that “ambitious climate action” could generate more than 65 million new low-carbon jobs in 2030.

            The Republican plan to do nothing, then, means America would be double-charged for its inaction: The country would lose trillions in missed opportunities for growth, and many trillions more due to a growing catastrophe. Passing a Green New Deal, or something like it, may sound expensive up front, but Republicans should see it for what it is: a sound investment that will generate the greatest returns imaginable—a livable planet.

            Comment


            • ^ Thanks for more of the propaganda and hysteria.

              It's general forum policy to cite the source of articles quoted, so for the opening half dozen or so paragraphs you didn't include in a near full article content post here ...
              https://newrepublic.com/article/1537...s-less-nothing

              D49EE094-1768-45BC-BC11-EE6BEA14148E.jpeg

              Comment


              • Meanwhile, "The New Republic" is far from an objective source ...
                https://newrepublic.com/

                ....
                The New Republic is an American magazine of commentary on politics and the arts, published since 1914, with influence on American political and cultural thinking. Founded in 1914 by leaders of the progressive movement, it attempted to find a balance between a humanitarian progressivism and an intellectual scientism, and ultimately discarded the latter.[3] Through the 1980s and '90s, the magazine incorporated elements of the "Third Way" and conservatism.[4]

                In 2014, two years after Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes purchased the magazine, he ousted its editor and attempted to remake its format, operations, and partisan stances, provoking the resignation of the majority of its editors and writers. In early 2016, Hughes announced he was putting the magazine up for sale, indicating the need for "new vision and leadership".[5][6] It was sold in February 2016 to Win McCormack.
                ....
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Republic

                Comment


                • Here’s Why You Should Think Twice Before Buying an EV

                  = Electric Vehicle(car)
                  http://thelasttech.com/tech/heres-wh...-buying-an-ev/

                  One major reason is the cost and environmental impact of their batteries, which last about 5-7 years and cause more pollution in manufacture and "recycle" than done by carbon fueled vehicles.

                  Comment


                  • TOM STEYER HYPOCRISY: Next Gen Climate Advocacy or Beachfront Mansion?

                    ...
                    For all you Tom Steyer 2020 supporters, here are just some of the facts you're probably NOT going to get from his campaign. The billionaire megadonor talks a big game when it comes to climate change and saving the environment. He even founded Next Gen America...but what about his ocean view mansions that are destroying beach wildlife?
                    ...
                    https://www.glennbeck.com/radio/tom-...m=Glenn%20Beck

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by G David Bock View Post
                      TOM STEYER HYPOCRISY: Next Gen Climate Advocacy or Beachfront Mansion?

                      ...
                      For all you Tom Steyer 2020 supporters, here are just some of the facts you're probably NOT going to get from his campaign. The billionaire megadonor talks a big game when it comes to climate change and saving the environment. He even founded Next Gen America...but what about his ocean view mansions that are destroying beach wildlife?
                      ...
                      https://www.glennbeck.com/radio/tom-...m=Glenn%20Beck
                      I beat Steyer's attempt to force solar on Arizona to death a year ago. Prop 127 failed here by just over 70% of the vote against it. I even got hate mail over my involvement in trying to stop it.

                      Steyer is a lying sack of feces when it comes to his Leftist talk. He runs a hedge fund called Farallon Capital. It's one of the biggest coal traders in Asia. He also owns a company called Kilowatt Financial LLC. They're one of the biggest home solar financers in the Western US. They teamed up with Tesla (aka Solar City) to sell people residential solar financed by his company. Elon Musk and Tom Steyer stood to make millions off prop 127.

                      Steyer is just another greedy billionaire ruthless businessman who's looking to turn a profit. The only difference is this time, he's targeting the Left and Environmentalists as his cash cow. He could care less about either, just show him the money.

                      Comment


                      • The following also belongs here where the topic/op better relates. It was in response to this ill-informed(ignorant?) and misleading post;
                        https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...61#post5139061
                        ...
                        IF, and it's a big IF, there is a "climate crisis" it is largely of Nature's cause and human factors(anthropogenic) remain minor ones.

                        Climate is always changing, in flux, various geological and ice core records show this. Those records over the past several hundreds of thousands of years show we have about a 4 out of 5 chance such will result in an Ice Age/Glaciation, rather than "Global Warming". In fact, we are still working our way out of the last Ice Age and such a process is not assured, we could plunge right back into one, especially if humans start to engage in ill thought out or understood geo-engineering. Best presented in this book; Climate Crash: Abrupt Climate Change and What It Means for Our Future


                        https://www.amazon.com/Climate-Crash.../dp/0309093120

                        As for "Carbon"; at 400 ppm(dry) (parts per million), Carbon Dioxide/CO2 is only 0.04% of dry (non water vapor factored) atmosphere, and doesn't retain heat so much as slow the transition time of absorption and re-emit of a couple small bands of infra-red("heat") radiation. Common Sense and basic math related to physics and chemistry would show that in this regard 0.04% will have limited affect upon the other 99.96% of the atmosphere.

                        Furthermore with 99.9% of life on this planet, Flora/"green plants" needing about 300ppm for minimum optimal health and life and with we 0.01% of animal life,Fauna, needing that Flora to exist, a one third excess(400ppm versus 300ppm) of an essential component for Life, one other last thing humans should be doing is major tweaking and alteration of carbon/CO2 levels.

                        Global(planet Earth) warming, or cooling, is the result of two major 'heat' sources, external via Sol, the Sun, and internal via radiative heat rising from Earth's interior/core. It is fluctuations of these plus slight modifiers of orbit, inclination, and other conductive factors that have caused Ice Ages more often than Warming Periods in recent geological past.

                        The whole "climate crisis" as expressed in terms of anthropogenic ~ human caused; "Climate Change"/"Global Warming" is largely sham science and flim-flam politics driven by "scientists" pursuing the terms of available funding (job$/income$) and social reconstructionists using a false crisis to steer social restructuring towards a more "socialist" and more powerful Central State New Order.

                        Comment


                        • It just makes me sick when i look around and see what we have done to this planet. just look at katrina hurricane, hurricane sandy, those hurricanes that devastated huston , porto rico etc and now dorian taking out the bahamas, these are level 5 hurricanes. the scientists predicted stuff like this would happen , and climate deniers just said it was fake news . you know 97% percent of all climate scientist say that this is caused by humans

                          https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

                          Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

                          And yet the deniers still say this is not true.

                          what will convince you that climate change is happening.

                          when the cost of doing nothing to fight climate changes costs more than the cost to fix climate change .

                          The Fourth National Climate Assessment, released November 23, predicts the U.S. economy will shrink by as much as 10 percent

                          So go figure a loss of 10% think about it . 10% loss each and every year .

                          Comment


                          • The deniers would quickly change their minds if Trump came out in support of the climate change problem. However, Trump is ignorant of science, as he is with history and geography, so it won't change until the moron is out of office.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Massena View Post
                              The deniers would quickly change their minds if Trump came out in support of the climate change problem. However, Trump is ignorant of science, as he is with history and geography, so it won't change until the moron is out of office.
                              Got any beachfront property? Better sell it soon because it'll be under water in a few years.

                              Hey I know some demos who would like to buy it.
                              {}

                              "Any story sounds true until someone tells the other side and sets the record straight." -Proverbs 18:17

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Massena View Post
                                The deniers would quickly change their minds if Trump came out in support of the climate change problem. However, Trump is ignorant of science, as he is with history and geography, so it won't change until the moron is out of office.
                                I wouldn't. If Trump came out in favor of Gorebal Warming, I'd castigate him for the same reasons I castigate those who argue for Gorebal Warming. By the by, Obama was ignorant of science, history, and geography too, only he sided with Leftist morons rather than Rightist and Centrist morons to use your term. And, the morons on the Left far exceed the moronic on the Right and Center in intellectual vacuousness.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X