|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 3, 2017 23:15:49 GMT
When the coasts are suddenly 20 miles further inland, all the people who used to live there will have to go somewhere. First of all, I'd call that a little more than an "inconvenience to some people" and secondly, you'll eventually feel part of that "inconvenience" yourself when your own town is overcrowded with refugees. Or maybe you won't. Maybe you'll be gone by that time. But your kids and grandkids will feel it. At the rate things are going, my kids, my grandkids and their grandkids are not going to see the shore 20 miles inland. And even if they do, so what? Should I make them sit in the dark and cold now so their great grand kids have 20 more miles of shore? It's not going to happen overnight if it happens at all. There will be time to adapt. To be honest, I'm more concerned about an asteroid wiping out the shore line than I am about anything man is doing that may (or may not) be happening. And that also, I'm not going to panic over. As for those refugees. We already have a refugee crisis, but it has nothing to do with climate change. Unless you're talking about the political climate and we're not allowed to discuss that here. so you missed the fact one of the more significant stressors in Syria was that their climate got a lot dryer? www.bitsofscience.org/syrian-drought-climate-trend-precipitation-temperatures-graph-6708/www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/a-major-contributor-to-the-syrian-conflict-climate-change/ |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Sept 4, 2017 1:18:34 GMT
At the rate things are going, my kids, my grandkids and their grandkids are not going to see the shore 20 miles inland. And even if they do, so what? Should I make them sit in the dark and cold now so their great grand kids have 20 more miles of shore? It's not going to happen overnight if it happens at all. There will be time to adapt. To be honest, I'm more concerned about an asteroid wiping out the shore line than I am about anything man is doing that may (or may not) be happening. And that also, I'm not going to panic over. As for those refugees. We already have a refugee crisis, but it has nothing to do with climate change. Unless you're talking about the political climate and we're not allowed to discuss that here. so you missed the fact one of the more significant stressors in Syria was that their climate got a lot dryer? www.bitsofscience.org/syrian-drought-climate-trend-precipitation-temperatures-graph-6708/www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/a-major-contributor-to-the-syrian-conflict-climate-change/Yes, there was a drought. But are we to also blame climate change for a dysfunctional government? |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 4, 2017 5:01:59 GMT
Yes, there was a drought. But are we to also blame climate change for a dysfunctional government? depends. are you saying a violent breakdown of society is impossible if you do not have a dysfunctional government? |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Sept 4, 2017 6:28:16 GMT
Yes, there was a drought. But are we to also blame climate change for a dysfunctional government? depends. are you saying a violent breakdown of society is impossible if you do not have a dysfunctional government? A dysfunctional government doesn't help. Southern California had a drought, but you didn't see a cival war. As I previously said, we can either adapt to climate change or not. Syria was already on the brink. The drought just push them over. If it hadn't been the drought, it would have been something else. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 4, 2017 15:52:28 GMT
depends. are you saying a violent breakdown of society is impossible if you do not have a dysfunctional government? A dysfunctional government doesn't help. Southern California had a drought, but you didn't see a cival war. As I previously said, we can either adapt to climate change or not. Syria was already on the brink. The drought just push them over. If it hadn't been the drought, it would have been something else. we're getting closer, too. the fact that lefties are willing to embrace violence is clear evidence of that. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Sept 4, 2017 17:55:26 GMT
This article is a little old, as it was written before the eclipse on August 21st, but the message holds up as far as this discussion goes. The author asks the basic question: "Why do people distrust or dispute so many aspects of science, but unanimously accept, without question, the ridiculously specific predictions on offer for every eclipse?" theconversation.com/eclipse-of-reason-why-do-people-disbelieve-scientists-81068It's well worth a read. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 4, 2017 19:21:12 GMT
This article is a little old, as it was written before the eclipse on August 21st, but the message holds up as far as this discussion goes. The author asks the basic question: "Why do people distrust or dispute so many aspects of science, but unanimously accept, without question, the ridiculously specific predictions on offer for every eclipse?" theconversation.com/eclipse-of-reason-why-do-people-disbelieve-scientists-81068It's well worth a read. because eclipses are so unequivocal. either it happens or it doesn't. whereas climate change can still be argued with a snowball in a place where snowballs are not uncommon. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Sept 4, 2017 23:32:04 GMT
This article is a little old, as it was written before the eclipse on August 21st, but the message holds up as far as this discussion goes. The author asks the basic question: "Why do people distrust or dispute so many aspects of science, but unanimously accept, without question, the ridiculously specific predictions on offer for every eclipse?" theconversation.com/eclipse-of-reason-why-do-people-disbelieve-scientists-81068It's well worth a read. because eclipses are so unequivocal. either it happens or it doesn't. whereas climate change can still be argued with a snowball in a place where snowballs are not uncommon. Except that argument is based on completely faulty logic that stems from lack of understanding of the word "climate". |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 5, 2017 0:09:59 GMT
because eclipses are so unequivocal. either it happens or it doesn't. whereas climate change can still be argued with a snowball in a place where snowballs are not uncommon. Except that argument is based on completely faulty logic that stems from lack of understanding of the word "climate". so? |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 5, 2017 7:29:29 GMT
We all need heat, cooling, clothes, food, transport. Until you can make a shortcut to that, we need transport. And the gobmint knows that. Which is why its such a revenue target. In other words, all we need is energy. Something the climate change religious leaders are adamantly opposed to. Exactly. Why do I get the impression they want us all to live in a Yurt and use nothing we cant gather ourselves within walking distance, and dont you DARE light a fire 'cos that pollutes. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 5, 2017 7:39:03 GMT
Discussion...
Geo-thermal energy.
I was talking about possible uses of heat inside the earth's core, and possible use of that as an energy source.
Its not just possible, its in use.
You pump water down to where it is hot, it gets heated, under pressure, and you get back.... steam.....
And stem does what?.
Creates energy if you run it through a turbine.
Its the basic principal of how a solar farm works, but they use Sunlight, not earths core, I was suggesting the geo-thermal answer for us that dont live in such sunny climates who dont have a spare farm sized land piece to use for sunlight, when we ever get sun here anyway.
Immediately "Shouted down" for using energy.... it will heat up the earth.... climate change dont you know?.
Pgwatt?./.. run that past me again?.
I am using one form of energy that is heat, changing it to a workable power source, without using fossil fuel, the by-product of all this is water vapour that is condensed back to water by cooling and therefore pre-heating the water being pumped down, and therefore, this is a non polluting non emissions non use of fossil fuels answer... and its "Bad"?.
Can anyone tell me the possible why behind that?. 'Cos when compared to coal fired generators, I am in a "Everyone wins" position here?.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Sept 5, 2017 12:59:54 GMT
Discussion... Geo-thermal energy. I was talking about possible uses of heat inside the earth's core, and possible use of that as an energy source. Its not just possible, its in use. You pump water down to where it is hot, it gets heated, under pressure, and you get back.... steam..... And stem does what?. Creates energy if you run it through a turbine. Its the basic principal of how a solar farm works, but they use Sunlight, not earths core, I was suggesting the geo-thermal answer for us that dont live in such sunny climates who dont have a spare farm sized land piece to use for sunlight, when we ever get sun here anyway. Immediately "Shouted down" for using energy.... it will heat up the earth.... climate change dont you know?. Pgwatt?./.. run that past me again?. I am using one form of energy that is heat, changing it to a workable power source, without using fossil fuel, the by-product of all this is water vapour that is condensed back to water by cooling and therefore pre-heating the water being pumped down, and therefore, this is a non polluting non emissions non use of fossil fuels answer... and its "Bad"?. Can anyone tell me the possible why behind that?. 'Cos when compared to coal fired generators, I am in a "Everyone wins" position here?. And just as some people on the anti-climate change side are arguing from faulty logic, some on the pro side are just as ignorant. What you're talking about is a perfectly viable form of alternative energy that's being researched and developed for that specific purpose by people who know a lot more about energy and climate than whole countries of people put together. Harnessing the natural power of our planet should have been way up there on the list of priorities a long time ago. We're already doing it with wind and hydroelectrics, so why not geothermal power as well? That heat is already being produced by natural processes, so we're not adding anything to the atmosphere that wouldn't have ended up there anyway. If anything, we might eventually be able to reduce some of the emissions that would have been spewed out of volcanoes and geothermal vents like geysers. What's not to love about that? |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 5, 2017 13:52:02 GMT
actually, it will cool the earth, because you are converting thermal energy from the core to kinetic energy in the turbines.
the city of klamath falls tried it, though, and did not get the energy output they anticipated. so as an alternative, they plumbed it through the city streets and bridges, and have geothermal de-icing in the winter.
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Sept 5, 2017 13:57:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 5, 2017 14:52:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Sept 5, 2017 15:13:33 GMT
True. Nothing is without its risks and drawbacks. The difference between when we started pulling coal, oil and gas out of the ground and now is that we understand things today that we hadn't even considered to think about back then. The mere fact that anyone's looking into the possible negative side effects of the alternatives we're looking at tells me that we've grown up a little as a species. We now understand that everything we do has consequences and someone is at least trying to address them before they turn into major problems. The challenge now is to get the people who make the decisions to take the scientific evidence seriously and not muddy the waters for the sake of money and politics. The way I see it, that's our species' Achilles heel. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Sept 5, 2017 16:35:16 GMT
As I said, all energy sources have their risks. Fraking has given the United States energy independence, but that independence comes at some serious environmental concerns. Is it worth it? I don't know. You can find all kinds of links both for and against fracking. I'm not sure I can believe any of them. But I sure do like $2.50/gal gasoline prices. |
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Sept 5, 2017 17:42:50 GMT
As far as geothermal goes, to put it succinctly, there are only a few places on the earth where the crust is thin enough that it makes drilling practical for heat. Iceland, Yellowstone basin, etc. In those places, you still need to to do a LOT of drilling to get enough steam to run a power plant. Even then, the pipe maintenance is a killer. Basically it costs a huge amount for a modest amount of power generation.
TLW, that does bring up an interesting point. Could this cooling effect be used in intentionally cool parts of the earth? For example Yellowstone, we all know there is a risk of a potentially world changing super eruption from that caldera due to a natural hot spot in the earth's crust underneath it. Could you build several large geothermal plants to intentionally suck out as much energy as you can from that hot spot to stabilize that area and cool the volcano? The main focus is on cooling the hot spot and the electricty generation is only a meanws of doing something useful with the energy extracted, basically just a byproduct.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Sept 5, 2017 19:44:35 GMT
As far as geothermal goes, to put it succinctly, there are only a few places on the earth where the crust is thin enough that it makes drilling practical for heat. Iceland, Yellowstone basin, etc. In those places, you still need to to do a LOT of drilling to get enough steam to run a power plant. Even then, the pipe maintenance is a killer. Basically it costs a huge amount for a modest amount of power generation. TLW, that does bring up an interesting point. Could this cooling effect be used in intentionally cool parts of the earth? For example Yellowstone, we all know there is a risk of a potentially world changing super eruption from that caldera due to a natural hot spot in the earth's crust underneath it. Could you build several large geothermal plants to intentionally suck out as much energy as you can from that hot spot to stabilize that area and cool the volcano? The main focus is on cooling the hot spot and the electricty generation is only a meanws of doing something useful with the energy extracted, basically just a byproduct. I love that idea! As far as I understand the Yellowstone situation, if that thing erupts, it won't just be a problem for America. The rest of the world would possibly have to deal with consequences of that for a year or longer. I remember reading something about a volcano eruption in the late 1800s that spewed out so much ash and soot that it darkened the skies all over the world for months. This thing supposedly has the potential tp be able to do something similar, so anything we could do to stop it or at least make it less potent would help. |
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Sept 5, 2017 20:53:52 GMT
I think you are thinking of the 1883 eruption of the island of Krakatoa. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1883_eruption_of_KrakatoaEruptions of Krakatoa in the 15th and 16 century along with several other volcanos, combined with low solar output are believed to be major causes of the little ices age in the mid 2nd millennia AD. Also, the 1815 eruption of mount Tambora is generally considered be the main cause of the 1816 "Year without a summer." These would be peanuts compared to Yellowstone going. How much energy would we be talking about needing to extract? That is my biggest fear. You go all out but are not able to make a dent in the heat energy below there. Would make for an interesting Science fiction story. |
|
