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

[Larry]

Didn't want to start a new thread, and this seems as close as we've got to a thread on energy. 

 

Just saw a commercial about how great some company is because of offshore wind power, and I once again wondered about that. 

 

What's the thing about offshore wind power?  

 

I mean, it sure seems to me that if you consider two sites for a windmill, 

 

1). Half a mile offshore

 

2). Half a mile inshore

 

 . . . , then it sure seems to me that they will produce exactly the same amount of power, and #2 will be greatly cheaper. Yeah, maybe the offshore site doesn't have to buy the land. But the offshore site has got to vastly increase the cost of construction, stringing power lines there, and maintaining all the above. 

 

So what am I missing?  Why this thing about going offshore?  

[TheGreatBuzz]

35 minutes ago, Larry said:

So what am I missing?  Why this thing about going offshore?

Having spent A LOT of time on the water, I would say its because the wind is always blowing harder out there.

[TheGoodBits]

6 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Having spent A LOT of time on the water, I would say its because the wind is always blowing harder out there.

 

Google agrees with you https://www.americangeosciences.org/critical-issues/faq/what-are-advantages-and-disadvantages-offshore-wind-farms

[China]

Yeah, I find these maps cool, and they generally show wind blowing harder offshore:

 

www.windy.com

 

 

 

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

How about a floating energy farm? Solar panels on top, “windmills” underneath propelled by ocean currents.

[twa]

25 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

How about a floating energy farm? Solar panels on top, “windmills” underneath propelled by ocean currents.

 

corrosion problems mainly and salt spray dims panels, working on it

[China]

On 2/10/2019 at 12:06 PM, Larry said:

Didn't want to start a new thread, and this seems as close as we've got to a thread on energy. 

 

 

 

Also re: energy (and not wanting to start a new thread):

 

South Jersey sewage plant makes energy from wind, solar — and meatball grease

 

From his perch 50 feet high on steel stairs, Dennis Palmer looked out over 1,800 acres of giant concrete tanks, solar-panel arrays, a forest, and a distant farm. What wasn’t visible, however, was an unusual source of power he uses at the sewage treatment plant he directs: meatball grease.

 

Meatballs have become part of Palmer’s mission to wring every bit of power and money out of the process of treating human waste. Part of the operation uses grease from restaurants, convenience stores, fast-food joints and a nearby meatball-making facility to power a generator.

 

“Grease is like rocket fuel,” Palmer said with a grin.

 

The Landis Sewerage Authority, which services Vineland, Cumberland County, is unusual because it generates more power than it uses through a combination of technology Palmer has cobbled together since taking the helm in 1993. His sustainability recipe also includes pancake batter, soup mix, and even the leftovers at a fruit-juice plant.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Cooked Crack]

Quote

Happer, a professor emeritus of physics at Princeton University, is not a trained climate scientist—but he has insisted repeatedly that carbon dioxide is actually good for the planet. “We’re doing our best to try and counter this myth that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant,” he said in 2016.

 

“It’s not a pollutant at all... We should be telling the scientific truth, that more CO2 is actually a benefit to the earth.”

 

[NoCalMike]

Wow, a total shocker, lets bring in a group of non-scientists to dispute the findings of scientists.   Would have never expected that.

[No Excuses]

38 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

 

History will not look kindly upon these people, but what do they care. They will be dead and the rest of us 20-30 years younger will have to deal with an international crisis, hampered by  insanely high public debt because Republicans also like to cut taxes while increasing government spending, partially through engagements in pointless wars. 

 

The next Democratic President would be insane not to declare a national emergency over climate change. If we can do it for minor issues, might as well declare it for a real crisis. 

Edited February 20, 2019 by No Excuses

[JCB]

Reminds me of a convo I had with a Trump-supporting friend who aired his doubts about whether climate change was real. After I explained to him that "theory" in science means something far more concrete than a hunch, I asked him if he thought it was prudent to conduct policy AS IF it were true, so we didn't **** the species hard down the road. He said he'd never thought of it like that. As if defense doesn't matter in policy, smdh.

[Cooked Crack]

 

[China]

THE EXTINCTION CRISIS

 

It's frightening but true: Our planet is now in the midst of its sixth mass extinction of plants and animals — the sixth wave of extinctions in the past half-billion years. We're currently experiencing the worst spate of species die-offs since the loss of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural “background” rate of about one to five species per year. Scientists estimate we're now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day [1].

 

Click on the link for more

[AsburySkinsFan]

Hey ya'll remember way back when the Right argued that climate change was a hoax?

And then thry finally had to admit that well yeah the world's climate is changing.

Now they're denying man caused climate change saying that it is a natural cycle.

Although oil companies are acknowledging man caused climate change.

Now these morons are going to convince the simpletons on the Right that CO2 pollution is good for the planet and environment.

And they'll believe it.

Because they want to, because accepting what science is clearly showing us means that they'll have to make changes or admit that they just don't give a ****.

[twa]

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

Imma tellin' ya folks, I could set my schedule by @twa's predictability with posting heavily biased lobbyist bull**** every time he's in a corner.

[twa]

30 minutes ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

Imma tellin' ya folks, I could set my schedule by @twa's predictability with posting heavily biased lobbyist bull**** every time he's in a corner.

 

me in a corner? 

Reality is cornering ya'll

[AsburySkinsFan]

You were a climate change denier not long ago. At least you've come far enough to accept that the world is getting hotter.

Now you just have your head up nuclear energy's ass because I assume you just enjoy tumors in your catfish.

 

Oh, and Bill Gates was a great computer genius, but that doesn't make him a genius in all fields. But I wouldn't expect you to admit that openly. After all you're the queen of cherry picking.

Edited February 24, 2019 by AsburySkinsFan

[twa]

1 minute ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

You were a climate change denier not long ago. At least you've come far enough to accept that the world is getting hotter.

Now you just have your head up nuclear energy's ass because I assume you just enjoy tumors in your catfish.

 

if you believe co2 is the problem then nuclear is the only real solution.

 

enjoy your tumors

[AsburySkinsFan]

2 minutes ago, twa said:

 

if you believe co2 is the problem then nuclear is the only real solution.

 

enjoy your tumors

Mmkay...

[AsburySkinsFan]

I believe in both sides of science.

 

 

[twa]

does that gold standard give you the % man causes and the % the proposed solutions will change?

 

If so I'd appreciate them.

 

 

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

I think this effort is pretty amazing, and what's pretty telling is that one of the leaders in this field of science is Shell Oil and other oil/gas companies who are spending BILLIONS in coal sequestration. 

Edited February 28, 2019 by AsburySkinsFan

[dfitzo53]

On 2/26/2019 at 11:32 AM, twa said:

does that gold standard give you the % man causes and the % the proposed solutions will change?

 

If so I'd appreciate them.

 

 

 

Are we counting farts as man-made?

[China]

How a nuclear war between India and Pakistan could reverse global warming

 

We're at a scary moment internationally as tensions escalate between the nuclear powers of India and Pakistan, and we should all be praying for things to calm down. In addition to the horrible death toll and humanitarian crisis that would follow, according to scientists, a small-scale nuclear war could actually reverse global warming and actually cause devastating global cooling.

 

To be abundantly clear, what follows isn't meant as a how-to guide advocating nuclear war as some sort of out-of-the box alternative solution to climate change. It's meant as a description of the science surrounding how a theoretical regional nuclear war could affect the Earth's atmosphere, and thus the climate, even for people not directly in the blast radius.

 

Though they weren't looking specifically at the current India-Pakistan conflict, in 2011, NASA scientists released a report based on a model that predicted the climate effects of the use of 100 Hiroshima-size bombs in a regional conflict. Though this would not be as intense as full-scale nuclear war between superpowers, such as the threat that existed between the U.S. and USSR during the Cold War, it still would be expected to have a dramatic effect on the climate.

 

That's because the bombs would inject up to 5 megatons of black carbon into the upper troposphere, the highest point of the lowest layer of the Earth's atmosphere. As National Geographic wrote, "In NASA climate models, this carbon then absorbed solar heat and, like a hot-air balloon, quickly lofted even higher, where the soot would take much longer to clear from the sky."

 

These carbon clouds were projected to cause temperatures to fall 1 degree Celsius, or 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, over the first three years, then to as low as 2.25 F before starting to creep back up. Even after 10 years, temperatures would still be expected to be 0.9 F lower than they would have been without the nuclear war.

 

Click on the link for the full article