That scene was in the Eastern Hemisphere, north of Australia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacuum7
|
That scene was in the Eastern Hemisphere, north of Australia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacuum7
I have no doubt of that
Reason behind climate change is human's stupidity.
Stupidity in what way?Quote:
Reason behind climate change is human's stupidity.
yes the stupidity of thinking Humans can control the climateQuote:
Originally Posted by tripinnholiday
Paraclete: YOU NAILED IT!
Surviving whatever Mother Nature is up to is a matter of adaptability.
Yes Tal, and humans have been adapting, and will continue to adapt
Don't really have much choice.
This is true, however some think the effects can be stopped and reversed by limiting CO2 emissions, this is stupidity and we are wasting resources when we should be adapting. New cities should be built away from the coast, and populations moved before a crisis arises, new water storages should be built and we should be finding ways to grow crops vertically using buildings as well as harvesting storm water. Cities like New Orleans should be abandoned and rebuilt inland.
I do understand this problem, there are many coastal places which will become inaccessable
The CLIMATE CHANGE BUNCH do not practice science: CLIMATE CHANGE is a religion.
Meanwhile, to demonstrate how much CLIMATE CHANGE rhetoric is designed to impugn the U.S., check out the facts: Red China, by its little old communist self, has bee identified as spewing out 28% of the worlds "Carbon Emissions"....the U.S. only chips-in 14% of the world's total carbon emissions.....If you listen to the left, they would have you think it the Carbon Emissions #'s were reverse and that the U.S. was responsible for most of the world's Carbon Emissions.
You could say the same about those right wing drill baby drill fanatics, who have no clue about cleaning up the messes they make and screw clean water land and air. Haven't had good shrimps since the gulf spill but who cares? Look the numbers are the numbers and when we turned our backs as leaders by example the numbers get worse, but who cares, right?
Talaniman: No, it just means we get REAL SERIOUS WITH THOSE THAT DRILL: IF YOU SPILL, THERE WILL BE CONSEQUENCES. If your business is pumping oil out of the ground or, in this case, from below the Gulf, and you want to keep pumping that oil, you better get your act together on the environmental side: that's the message that needs to get out there....need to stop pussyfooting around with the producers and talk to them in a language they understand, which is $$$s in fines for screwing up. Yes, oil handling can be a problem but it doesn't HAVE to be....Nuclear can definitely be a problem but it is relatively clean, minus a few episodes over the last 50 years or so, and oil drilling needs that same intensity of focus to make it more in line with our expectations: We don't need to throw the baby out with the bath water. It behooves the U.S. to wean itself COMPLETELY from the sandbox of pain called the Middle East: We need to position ourselves where we can tell the M.E. to go eat their sand, we don't need their oil.....and the thought of the U.S. staying around the M.E. JUST TO PROTECT EUROPE'S OIL IS DISGUSTING: LET THE EUROPEANS GET OFF THE DIME AND PROTECT THEIR OWN INTERESTS! Personally, I think many in the U.S. are still frightened by the specter of Germany rearming itself to the teeth and going abroad....you'll never hear this but I think the thought is in the back of many minds.
Be darned if I don't mostly agree with you Vac! I think drillers should be wholly responsible for clean ups and safety considerations which includes power companies being responsible for waste management, and the occasional pollution from spills and contamination of land, air, and water, along with the very real health risks to humans because of it.
Where we diverge however is acknowledging how the rest of the world, mostly ALLIES can meet their energy demands effectively which is mostly through the ME, and Russia, who are already armed, and arming as we speak. I worry less about Germany as a military threat than as being leveraged to comply with making a deal with Russia and the Saudis or any other energy producer for that matter simply to meet their energy needs. It's one thing for us to be energy independent, but we cannot ignore that our allies are not.
Right now nuclear is a viable solution for them but until they are at that point, they need oil! An affordable and reliable supply of it. That's just the reality of the world.
You have a poor memory there was a time when the US was the largest emitter, then they exported their industries to China along with the condemnation, but the damage the US did is still in the atmosphere, that is if you believe climate science which is akin to Scientology. The US still buys goods from China so don't point the finger. You have a lot of renewables but in twenty years you will have to renew them which is very expensive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vacuum7
Tal what we need now is new technology, coal is old, oil is old, solar is old, wind is old, but if we were to harness the power of waterQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Yeah, move New York City a few miles inland. That should be a simple project.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Talk about stupidity!
No you don't, you're clueless.Quote:
I do understand this problem
Still waiting on that Matthew 25 response. Been a while.
I kind of questioned that one myself. Coastal cities are there for a reason. New York City would not be NYC without its port facilities. Moving New Orleans is not going to happen. Besides, we shouldn't move anything over a half-inch rise in sea levels.Quote:
Yeah, move New York City a few miles inland. That should be a simple project.
That's great except for where there is a great lack of water, like the vast Australian wilderness for example. Even you guys haven't solved that one yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I kind of questioned that one myself. I assume he is talking about harnessing the energy of waves and tides, but I don't know of anywhere that is happening, and I would think it is going to be really difficult and expensive. Other than nuclear, I don't see anything on the horizon that can take the place of fossil fuels.Quote:
That's great except for where there is a great lack of water, like the vast Australian wilderness for example. Even you guys haven't solved that one yet.
I think scrubber and capture technology is entirely viable if you can get past the initial investment and loss of some profits for a short while. Heck the taxpaying consumers tout the expenses any way you cut it. None of us could afford lights if our government didn't subsidize these companies any way.
Is that the same gov that is about 22 tril in debt and still spending money like it grows on trees?Quote:
None of us could afford lights if our government didn't subsidize these companies any way.
Yes it is.
No I'm talking about hydrolysis, by the way there are such projects as you speak of in AustraliaQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Are we confusing water based energy systems with the breaking down of organic matter?
There is a lot of confusion here Tal, no less than in the general community regarding such matters, Hydrolysis breaks down water into its constituent elements and the fuel produces water as a result of combustion thus it is clean and will be the basis of a hydrogen fuel system once we get the fossil fuel multinationals out of the way. Water is an unlimited resourceQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Back to the OP
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-...-blog/11773726
Where I live the state is burning; the firefronts encompass thousands of kilometres, fortunately casualities are low but they do happen, thousands of buildings have been lost, not to mention destruction of wildlife, animals, forest and lives. It does not stop and it will not stop whileever the drought persists. There are many who want to have a debate on climate change, when they should be on the fire line fighting the fires or raising money for the victims. No amount of debate and finger pointing will make any difference
Hydrolysis? I think you mean Electrolysis. As I understand it, an electric current is passed through water releasing hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen can be burned as a fuel and the product of combustion is simply water. The problem is that the current has to be produced somewhere. Again, as I understand it, the thinking is that solar and wind could produce the electrical power. Cloudy days, nights and windless days are no problem since the production does not have to be constant. That might turn out to be do-able but it's a long ways off. The capital expense would be absolutely enormous. All of the current storage and distribution networks would become obsolete and have to be replaced. Every power generating station would have to be completely retooled. I would imagine you are talking about multiple trillions of dollars. And then there is the question of the expense of this new fuel.Quote:
No I'm talking about hydrolysis, by the way there are such projects as you speak of in Australia.
Please provide a link for clarity Clete as all I find was a process to break down sludge in Australia.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
I would imagine that those that can't help with the fires can still debate. That's how it usually works in most places.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_power_in_AustraliaQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
We have also developed a process to turn plastic back into oil
Debate is useless, no amount of talk can change the factsQuote:
I would imagine that those that can't help with the fires can still debate. That's how it usually works in most places.
Thanks Clete, we also have a number of WAVE energy projects going on.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
You have to keep debating the FACTS to find a solution don't you?Quote:
Debate is useless, no amount of talk can change the facts
More stupidity today as journalists around the world and particularly the slimes say that Australia is to blame for the bush fires and poor air quality, absolutely no understanding that this is a weather event caused by the Collision of three weather systems which have produced hot dry conditions and strong winds resulting in drought and fires. I hate this leftist agenda which fawns after global scientists and forgets that the CO2 problem, if it is a problem, originated in the northern hemisphere, yes, those same critics are responsible for our problems
Come on now Clete, it's a waste of time to blame Mother Nature for doing what MN does. You had to see this coming and may as well admit you did nothing about it, or were very effective making the adjustments to deal with it. The good news is you are hardly alone being helpless and powerless. Join the rest of us stupid humans being swept away burned and suffocated by our own inability to figure it out.
Tal go peddle your leftist B/S somewhere else. there is nothing we could have done to prevent this. I have been saying for a long time climate change has been happening for thousands of years. Even NASA will tell you that our orbit and the sun are responsible, but even if they shouted it you would not listen, no that information is suppressed and I wonder by who.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
For the benefit of the ill informed there are three weather systems that control the circumstances here;
El Nino, the Indian Ocean Dipole and the Southern Oscillation and all three are in a phase which limits rain, brings high temperatures and strong winds, this will persist for some months to come and no amount of renewables and wishful thinking will do anything about it. Prayer might
I would agree that increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere is not a good idea, but how much that has effected climate is still a debate in progress. Getting off of fossil fuels is going to be a challenge. The dem party's ridiculous "Green New Deal" is a laugher, but so is doing nothing. I have a feeling that the productive power of free enterprise will solve it if we can keep the government out of the way long enough.
Nonsense. Source: far right fringe website. NASA has said no such thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Praying for more firefighters and equipment?Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Praying for rain and in particular for the southern oscillation to retreat, on the equipment front we lost a helicopter yesterday which grounded all firefighting aircraft for safety checks. No amount of men and equipment can face the intensity of what is happening here
Well it's your country so if you just want to let it burn I guess you have that right. Just saying it's an unfortunate and dangerous situation and plenty challenging but you may as well get your backs into it and do the best you can. Pray for strength and keep shoveling and load up on more eqiopment.
You can't be serious, but even if we had no emissions it wouldn't change anything because the problem is in the Northern Hemisphere, that is if you are a true believer, anyway visibility down to 300 metres this morning and the smell of smoke in the air and we are at least 100 km from the main fires, Saw an interesting study that demonstrates we are in the trough of a long term cycle of cold temperatures due to solar oscillation so keep the fires burning, you need themQuote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Stopping whatever is going on with weather system and weather cycles is a fool's folly. The earth will warm and cool as it so chooses or as system effects drive it, regardless of what WE do....WE have little to no impact but our arrogance makes us thing that we can make a difference.....that gives us "comfort" that we are DOING SOMETHING POSITIVE: its all a play on our frailties and emotions..the "FEEL GOOD" effect...but the one's who FEEL the best are that bastard that almost became POTUS and his ilk: THEY FEEL GOOD BECAUSE THEY ARE BILLIONAIRES BASED OFF PSUEDO SCIENCE!
US/WE/MANKIND effecting weather or whether the earth warms or cools is akin to A PISS ANT PISSING ON A FOREST FIRE!
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:47 AM. |