skinny21 Posted October 7, 2017 Share Posted October 7, 2017 On Pod Save America, they interviewed Ray Maybus - former Secretary of the Navy. Talked about (among many other things) transitioning to alternative energy and why. Very interesting. Seals now have roll out solar panels so they don't have to use generators (a beacon for enemies due to their volume), and marine units no longer need to carry hundreds of pounds of batteries. Points out that USS Cole was bombed while refueling, ships are often forced to refuel at (non-American) ports, and fueling costs have now been cut back. Really, really interesting conversation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted October 9, 2017 Share Posted October 9, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted October 9, 2017 Author Share Posted October 9, 2017 On October 7, 2017 at 11:35 AM, skinny21 said: On Pod Save America, they interviewed Ray Maybus - former Secretary of the Navy. Talked about (among many other things) transitioning to alternative energy and why. Very interesting. Seals now have roll out solar panels so they don't have to use generators (a beacon for enemies due to their volume), and marine units no longer need to carry hundreds of pounds of batteries. Points out that USS Cole was bombed while refueling, ships are often forced to refuel at (non-American) ports, and fueling costs have now been cut back. Really, really interesting conversation. Republicans have mindlessly attacked and tried to block everything the military has done to make the transition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted November 5, 2017 Share Posted November 5, 2017 Did everyone read the scientific report that states humans are responsible for a specific amount of warming, and it’s A LOT. Like holy **** we are screwed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted November 5, 2017 Share Posted November 5, 2017 Unless something very odd and extreme happens in Nov and Dec, this will be the warmest non-El Nino year on record based on the satellite data sets. Oct was the warmest Oct on record. Even warmer than previous El Nino Octobers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted November 5, 2017 Share Posted November 5, 2017 But you know all that elitist science will be kicked to the curb as soon as it snows................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 5, 2017 Share Posted November 5, 2017 Just now, Springfield said: Did everyone read the scientific report that states humans are responsible for a specific amount of warming, and it’s A LOT. Like holy **** we are screwed. Not really, ya really wouldn't like the new ice age. https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-deceptive-new-report-on-climate-1509660882 The world’s response to climate changing under natural and human influences is best founded upon a complete portrayal of the science. The U.S. government’s Climate Science Special Report… does not provide that foundation. Instead, it reinforces alarm with incomplete information and highlights the need for more-rigorous review of climate assessments. A team of some 30 authors chartered by the U.S. Global Change Research Program began work in spring 2016 on the report, “designed to be an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change.” An early draft was released for public comment in January and reviewed by the National Academies this spring. I, together with thousands of other scientists, had the opportunity to scrutinize and discuss the final draft when it was publicized in August by the New York Times . While much is right in the report, it is misleading in more than a few important places. One notable example of alarm-raising is the description of sea-level rise, one of the greatest climate concerns. The report ominously notes that while global sea level rose an average 0.05 inch a year during most of the 20th century, it has risen at about twice that rate since 1993. But it fails to mention that the rate fluctuated by comparable amounts several times during the 20th century. The same research papers the report cites show that recent rates are statistically indistinguishable from peak rates earlier in the 20th century, when human influences on the climate were much smaller. The report thus misleads by omission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted November 5, 2017 Share Posted November 5, 2017 And of course this. Because why not??? https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/nov/05/donald-trump-accused-blocking-satellite-climate-change-research Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted November 5, 2017 Share Posted November 5, 2017 55 minutes ago, twa said: Not really, ya really wouldn't like the new ice age. https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-deceptive-new-report-on-climate-1509660882 The world’s response to climate changing under natural and human influences is best founded upon a complete portrayal of the science. The U.S. government’s Climate Science Special Report… does not provide that foundation. Instead, it reinforces alarm with incomplete information and highlights the need for more-rigorous review of climate assessments. A team of some 30 authors chartered by the U.S. Global Change Research Program began work in spring 2016 on the report, “designed to be an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change.” An early draft was released for public comment in January and reviewed by the National Academies this spring. I, together with thousands of other scientists, had the opportunity to scrutinize and discuss the final draft when it was publicized in August by the New York Times . While much is right in the report, it is misleading in more than a few important places. One notable example of alarm-raising is the description of sea-level rise, one of the greatest climate concerns. The report ominously notes that while global sea level rose an average 0.05 inch a year during most of the 20th century, it has risen at about twice that rate since 1993. But it fails to mention that the rate fluctuated by comparable amounts several times during the 20th century. The same research papers the report cites show that recent rates are statistically indistinguishable from peak rates earlier in the 20th century, when human influences on the climate were much smaller. The report thus misleads by omission. Peak rates for a short periods of time, but not over a 10 year period of time. Because there have been short period of times when the rate has increased about the same amount that essentially the same rate observed over a decade isn't a concern is laughable. That's like saying the fact that the rate at which the Earth warmed from Last Jan to July was faster than the rate at which it has warmed since from Jan 1950 to Jan 2017 that climate change isn't an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted November 5, 2017 Share Posted November 5, 2017 Oh, another one? http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-41859283 Quote Speakers from coal giant Peabody Energy, among others, will make a presentation to highlight the role that coal and other fuels can play in curbing the impacts of rising temperatures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 Ancient underground streams of heated rock, called a mantle plume, might be an explanation for the instability of Antarctica’s western ice sheet, according to a new NASA study. Scientists have been debating whether or not mantle plume heat contributes to western Antarctica’s instability. Some recent studies provided evidence this might be the case, but even this study’s authors were skeptical. “I thought it was crazy,” Hélène Seroussi, the study’s co-author and scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, said in a release. “I didn’t see how we could have that amount of heat and still have ice on top of it,” Seroussi said in a statement. NASA says Seroussi’s study provides more evidence of geothermal activity underneath a portion of the world’s largest ice sheet. / . Seroussi’s study showed a mantle plume pushes 150 milliwatts per square meter of heat up towards the ice sheet. That’s about two to three times the heat flux of regions of the world without volcanic activity. A 2014 University of Texas study found western Antarctica was a literal hotbed for geothermal heat. Researchers concluded that “large areas at the base of Thwaites Glacier are actively melting in response to geothermal flux consistent with rift-associated magma migration and volcanism.” The following year, another team of U.S. scientists found there’s a huge amount of geothermal heat under western antarctica. “The high geothermal heat flux may help to explain why ice streams and subglacial lakes are so abundant and dynamic in this region,” the study found. Earlier this year, Scottish researchers found 91 previously unidentified volcanoes under the Antarctic ice sheet, including one that’s some 13,000 feet tall. http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/07/nasa-has-more-evidence-volcanic-activity-is-heating-up-antarcticas-ice-sheet/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 Keep polluting everyone! twa-bot says it’s ok!! Dismantle the EPA twa-bot says that there’s no need for government over-sight because our benevolent corporations wouldn’t dare hurt us. More guns More pollution More global warming More environmental desctruction It’s like the Republicans have a bet to see who can turn the world into a wasteland first! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 Just now, AsburySkinsFan said: Keep polluting everyone! twa-bot says it’s ok!! No ,you true believers should cease your contributions though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 48 minutes ago, twa said: No ,you true believers should cease your contributions though. Been down this road before with you. I’m not a naive extremist that requires ending the world to stop 100% pollution today. I’m also not a mentally deranged extremist that denies climate change. Believe it or not there is a middle ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 I am the middle ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 Quote 2017 Will Have The Highest-Ever Level Of Carbon Emissions, Scientists Predict 2018: "Hold my beer" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 13, 2017 Share Posted November 13, 2017 1 hour ago, LD0506 said: 2018: "Hold my beer" From China making them Telsa batteries ? production of a 100 kWh battery—Tesla's biggest—produces 17.5 tons of carbon dioxide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 10 hours ago, twa said: From China making them Telsa batteries ? production of a 100 kWh battery—Tesla's biggest—produces 17.5 tons of carbon dioxide. http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/hybrid-electric/news/a27039/tesla-battery-emissions-study-fake-news/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 BTW, I test drove a tesla and it was AWESOME!!! Can't wait to get mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 Just now, Hersh said: BTW, I test drove a tesla and it was AWESOME!!! Can't wait to get mine. I can't wait to subsidize you Just now, Hersh said: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/hybrid-electric/news/a27039/tesla-battery-emissions-study-fake-news/ You will note they do not dispute the CO2 number but rather the miles driven needed by what type of vehicle. maybe you should walk to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 7 minutes ago, twa said: I can't wait to subsidize you You will note they do not dispute the CO2 number but rather the miles driven needed by what type of vehicle. maybe you should walk to work. You should note the point of the article. If you drive one, it will hurt your heart how awesome it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 Just now, Hersh said: You should note the point of the article. If you drive one, it will hurt your heart how awesome it is. for that price and it's limitations it better be. just remember how many Chinamen suffered to get ya there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hersh Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 14 minutes ago, twa said: for that price and it's limitations it better be. just remember how many Chinamen suffered to get ya there Not really sure what limitations you are referring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 14, 2017 Share Posted November 14, 2017 Just now, Hersh said: Not really sure what limitations you are referring. there are none, tis magic, just like the environmental impact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now