Mad Mike

I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

TX is actually doing well with alternative energy.  They are (geographically) well situated to capture wind and solar (large open land with lots of sunshine).

 

And are doing so well reasonably well.  TX has also worked through the years to diversify their economy (not get stuck in a situation where they are overly dependent on oil again after the oil crash in the 1980s that tanked the TX economy) and have broadly invested in lots of technology, including alternative energy.

 

If there is a shift in energy production, TX wants to make sure they are well situated to take advantage of it (and not be left behind), and the best way to do that is to actually have those industries be active in your state.  Your state can't be involved in advances in an industry if the industry doesn't do much in your state.

 

(Given where they are geographically, it would be nice if they were even doing better.  What would be even better though is if they'd control consumption more/better.  I think that's the American component.)

You got liberal coming out of your mouf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

You got liberal coming out of your mouf.

 

Better than in...unless you're into that. 😁

Edited by The Evil Genius
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

When it comes to 'murica's air quality, California still rightly drives policy. Automakers were right to deal with progressive states. Especially with the 5th largest economy in the world. 

 

 

Are the car manufactures getting something from CA out of this?

 

Or is this just an agreement with no stick or carrot?

 

(I looked, but could not find anything.)

 

If this is an agreement without any enforcement, I'd bet the effect is close to 0.  There is no way those 4 companies are going to put themselves at an economic disadvantage for an agreement they made with CA with no teeth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd suspect they didn't want to risk losing 12% of their US sales. California new car registrations account for about 12% of all US new yearly car registrations (according to NADA). 

 

That said...the automakers are getting something in return. They will get extra credit for fuel saving devices that the EPA doesn't currently credit for (like engines stopping at red lights). They also will get to count hydrogen fuel cell and electric battery devices towards the goal of upping mpg standards (they will get to count them for up to 1% of the 3.7% increase each year between 2022-2026).

Edited by The Evil Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

@twa be all like 🤯

WTF, I thought Texas was Uhmerican!!

 

 

I've posted on our wind energy many a time :ols:.....but BOTH wind and coal are only 43% .

 

ercot.png

 

 

Solar is a whopping 1% 

 

if you read the article  ,and know anything about the requirement here to buy alt energy first, you might grasp why NG provides so much electricity here.

 

of course we had to invest many billions in transmission lines ect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those Texas windmill farms are incredible. Or at least they seemed incredible to me... I saw them when I was driving back from Colorado. I hadn’t slept the night before because I was driving to Colorado.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awwww, it's soooo kewt watching @twa ****ing about being less coal dependent and knowing that the "Great State of Texas" is going renewable. LOL

It's like San Francisco invaded and he's being held hostage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Awwww, it's soooo kewt watching @twa ****ing about being less coal dependent and knowing that the "Great State of Texas" is going renewable. LOL

It's like San Francisco invaded and he's being held hostage.

 

What planet are you on today?   :ols:

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few recent studies:

 

No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era

 

Earth’s climate history is often understood by breaking it down into constituent climatic epochs1. Over the Common Era (the past 2,000 years) these epochs, such as the Little Ice Age2–4, have been characterized as having occurred at the same time across extensive spatial scales5. Although the rapid global warming seen in observations over the past 150 years does show nearly global coherence6, the spatiotemporal coherence of climate epochs earlier in the Common Era has yet to be robustly tested. Here we use global palaeoclimate reconstructions for the past 2,000 years, and find no evidence for preindustrial globally coherent cold and warm epochs. In particular, we find that the coldest epoch of the last millennium—the putative Little Ice Age—is most likely to have experienced the coldest temperatures during the fifteenth century in the central and eastern Pacific Ocean, during the seventeenth century in northwestern Europe and southeastern North America, and during the mid-nineteenth century over most of the remaining regions. Furthermore, the spatial coherence that does exist over the preindustrial Common Era is consistent with the spatial coherence of stochastic climatic variability. This lack of spatiotemporal coherence indicates that preindustrial forcing was not sufficient to produce globally synchronous extreme temperatures at multidecadal and centennial timescales. By contrast, we find that the warmest period of the past two millennia occurred during the twentieth century for more than 98 per cent of the globe. This provides strong evidence that anthropogenic global warming is not only unparalleled in terms of absolute temperatures5, but also unprecedented in spatial consistency within the context of the past 2,000 years.

 

Click  on the link for the full article

 

--------

 

Last phase of the Little Ice Age forced by volcanic eruptions

 

During the first half of the nineteenth century, several large tropical volcanic eruptions occurred within less than three decades. The global climate effects of the 1815 Tambora eruption have been investigated, but those of an eruption in 1808 or 1809 whose source is unknown and the eruptions in the 1820s and 1830s have received less attention. Here we analyse the effect of the sequence of eruptions in observations, global three-dimensional climate field reconstructions and coupled climate model simu-lations. All the eruptions were followed by substantial drops of summer temperature over the Northern Hemisphere land areas. In addition to the direct radiative effect, which lasts 2–3 years, the simulated ocean–atmosphere heat exchange sustained cool-ing for several years after these eruptions, which affected the slow components of the climate system. Africa was hit by two decades of drought, global monsoons weakened and the tracks of low-pressure systems over the North Atlantic moved south. The low temperatures and increased precipitation in Europe triggered the last phase of the advance of Alpine glaciers. Only after the 1850s did the transition into the period of anthropogenic warming start. We conclude that the end of the Little Ice Age was marked by the recovery from a sequence of volcanic eruptions, which makes it difficult to define a single pre-industrial baseline.

 

Click on the link for the full article

 

----------

 

Consistent multidecadal variability in global temperature reconstructions and simulations over the Common Era

 

Multidecadal surface temperature changes may be forced by natural as well as anthropogenic factors, or arise unforced from the climate system. Distinguishing these factors is essential for estimating sensitivity to multiple climatic forcings and the amplitude of the unforced variability. Here we present 2,000-year-long global mean temperature reconstructions using seven different statistical methods that draw from a global collection of temperature-sensitive palaeoclimate records. Our recon-structions display synchronous multidecadal temperature fluctuations that are coherent with one another and with fully forced millennial model simulations from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 across the Common Era. A substantial portion of pre-industrial (1300–1800 CE) variability at multidecadal timescales is attributed to volcanic aerosol forcing. Reconstructions and simulations qualitatively agree on the amplitude of the unforced global mean multidecadal temperature variability, thereby increasing confidence in future projections of climate change on these timescales. The largest warming trends at timescales of 20 years and longer occur during the second half of the twentieth century, highlighting the unusual character of the warming in recent decades.

 

Click on the link for the full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/25/2019 at 1:07 PM, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Those Texas windmill farms are incredible. Or at least they seemed incredible to me... I saw them when I was driving back from Colorado. I hadn’t slept the night before because I was driving to Colorado.

 

Right, but how are all those windwills affecting the "wind cancer" rates?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the bottom of a glacier in Greenland, climate scientists find troubling signs

 

Kulusuk, Greenland (CNN)On one of the hottest days this summer, locals in the tiny village of Kulusuk, Greenland heard what sounded like an explosion. It turned out to be a soccer field's worth of ice breaking off a glacier more than five miles away.

 

Greenland lost 12.5 billion tons of ice to melting on August 2, the largest single-day loss in recorded history and another stark reminder of the climate crisis.


Kulusuk is also base camp for NASA's OMG (Oceans Melting Greenland) program. OMG scientists traveled to the world's biggest island this year after a heatwave scorched the United States and Europe, smashing temperature records and triggering the mass melting of its ice sheet.


NASA oceanographer Josh Willis and his team are investigating how the ice is being attacked not only by rising air temperatures but also by the warming ocean, which is eating it away from underneath.

 

A remodeled World War II DC-3 plane, now called Basler BT-57, takes a group of OMG researchers around the coast of Greenland. From the air the crew launch special probes through the ice floor, which then transmit data on temperature and salinity, which is used to plot possible sea level rises and what they would mean for humanity in the future.


"There is enough ice in Greenland to raise the sea levels by 7.5 meters, that's about 25 feet, an enormous volume of ice, and that would be devastating to coastlines all around the planet," said Willis. "We should be retreating already from the coastline if we are looking at many meters [lost] in the next century or two."

 

Click on the link for the full article and video

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2019 at 4:20 PM, China said:

There is enough ice in Greenland to raise the sea levels by 7.5 meters, that's about 25 feet, an

 

Not sure I'm buying that. Not 100% sure it's false, either. But skeptical. (And the math makes it less difficult to believe than I thought). 

 

Quick Google tells me that:

 

Surface area of the Earth's oceans:  362 M km^2. 

Surface area of Greenland:  2.17 M km ^2. 

 

A ratio of 167:1

 

Meaning, if you take one foot of water from the Earth's oceans, and put that water on Greenland, it will cover Greenland 167 feet deep. 

 

7.5m * 167 = enough water to cover Greenland 1.25 Km deep. (Average depth). 

 

I assume the ice cover in Greenland is thick. But that thick?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Larry said:

 

Not sure I'm buying that. Not 100% sure it's false, either. But skeptical. (And the math makes it less difficult to believe than I thought). 

 

Quick Google tells me that:

 

Surface area of the Earth's oceans:  362 M km^2. 

Surface area of Greenland:  2.17 M km ^2. 

 

A ratio of 167:1

 

Meaning, if you take one foot of water from the Earth's oceans, and put that water on Greenland, it will cover Greenland 167 feet deep. 

 

7.5m * 167 = enough water to cover Greenland 1.25 Km deep. (Average depth). 

 

I assume the ice cover in Greenland is thick. But that thick?

 

Yes:

 

Quote

The thickness is generally more than 2 km (1.2 mi) and over 3 km (1.9 mi) at its thickest point.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet#targetText=Outline map of Greenland with,deep ice core was taken.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Larry said:

 

I assume the ice cover in Greenland is thick. But that thick?

 

Serious question: did you look up this question before pressing submit?

 

There are using satellites to measure the mass of these ice sheets and their effect on Earths gravity, that's how big some of them are.  If DoD says climate change is a national security threat, why cant we just believe them?  We gonna be having this debate underwater at this rate.

Edited by Renegade7
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Serious question: did you look up this question before pressing submit?

 

1)  Yes.  I actiually looked up the answer to my own question, saw that it made sense, then went and looked up all of the data I presented in my post, and did the math I cited in my post, anyway, so that I could ask a question I already knew the answer to.  

 

2)  Serious question: Did you actually just ask me whether the scenario I presented above was true?  

 

Edited by Larry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

1)  Yes.  I actiually looked up the answer to my own question, saw that it made sense, then went and looked up all of the data I pre4sented in my post, and did the math I cited in my post, anyway.  

 

2)  Serious question: Did you actually just ask me whether the scenario I presented above was true?  

 

 

Yes, specificly asking if the ice sheet was really that thick, because I dont understand why you tried to debunk that stat he posted.  

 

It took @China a single sentence to show that the ice sheet was for the most part as thick as your scenario if it was water, in some places more then twice that. You're smart enough I expected you to try to confirm it, not disprove it, that's actually not helping.

Edited by Renegade7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.