Buckeyes_Suck

Sooooo boring these days. I want another 60+ event. Oh wait, we got one, wind.

Itll pick up here as soon as we some see some flakes 240 hours out...

Someone wake me up when its snowing again.

Quantum scape has working prototypes, their next hurdle is cost and increasing the number of fast charge cycles before significant degradation. Right now they get about 400, which for me is plenty. https://www.electrive.com/2022/02/01/quantumscapes-solid-state-batteries-holds-400-at-charging-cycles/

3 hours ago, bluewave said:

If this solid-state battery technology works out, then we could begin to see much wider acceptance of EVs in the future. Faster charging times, improved safety, and lower cost than the current battery technology. Then we’ll just need to build out the charging infrastructure. Cell towers rapidly expanded once everybody wanted to have a cell phone.
 

 

My money is on these guys. https://www.quantumscape.com

30 minutes ago, SnowenOutThere said:

Are you going to explain your views to us, I would be interested to hear them and try to explain my views to you.

My over simplistic summary is not to put all our eggs in one basket. There’s a good chance that we could devote all our resources to stopping climate change and not be successful. I’d like to see more programs dedicated to mitigating the effects. 

14 minutes ago, TugHillMatt said:

When she married you, she married us.

Anytime my wife sees my typing furiously on my phone she knows it’s this forum. 

10 hours ago, BuffaloWeather said:

Was thinking about setting up an invite only discord for our forum as it grows. Does anyone here use discord or would be interested in something like this?

I’m game. 

4 minutes ago, csnavywx said:

Let's hear what your doubts are and what you would have to see to change your mind. If you want engagement here, you need a falsifiable position to begin with.

I just started reading it after listening to the latest Jordan Peterson podcast. 

Anyone else here read this?

False Alarm by Bjorn Lomborg 

2 hours ago, BuffaloWeather said:

He takes pictures of snowflakes quite often, so beautiful

I’ve got a tattoo that’s looks just like this one. 

2 minutes ago, BuffaloWeather said:

Except crypto is going to keep going up. I believe in it. I think a steady increase vs the craziness of last year. Especially with the new ISO eventually being implemented. 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/iso-20022-cryptos-5-compliant-194204661.html?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAFWLiKaAtRwYgGLu_vvAU6ibtT5vTdJxnughEdbnK5A5m10AwJp0yEfQKjQ99vIJg7seKYs5uweIyJy6cguDVvsg4B0hoRj1xpFbmHnhxE5UKbMz5Iek60xiG2JKxHq2QOvttsl5vi_H-Sd8Yhw0HRJ9IaQSHwiYpcY5TVNANw-G

True but at a realistic pace, just like housing. Mixed in there will be epic crashes like when BTC hit 60k.

All my investment is in TRX and XRP right now

1 hour ago, BuffaloWeather said:

Smart move from our Canadian friends

Canada to Ban Foreigners From Buying Homes as Prices Soar

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-06/canada-to-ban-some-foreigners-from-buying-homes-as-prices-soar

Whats going on there reminds me of when everyone was jumping into crypto. There's no way that bubble doesn't burst.

4 hours ago, BuffaloWeather said:

Saw this on facebook. Snownado

Promo poster from Sharknado 7

1 hour ago, BuffaloWeather said:

Woke up to a bunch of texts this morning. So happy to have him back. 

1 hour ago, wolfie09 said:

I'm just happy that I dont have to buy my wife a new jersey for four more years

1 hour ago, skierinvermont said:

I'm not being aggressive. I'm asking you to support your unsubstantiated claims with sources, since your claims are widely contracted by various research organizations such as the EIA and IPCC. 

You responded to mainstream well sourced cost studies on nuclear vs wind solar and gas with a snarky "sorry this is anti-nuclear bs" and no sources to back up your radical claims. 

Wind and solar are not stop gaps. More unsourced nonsense. Maybe you should take some of your unsourced hunches to the execs at power companies who are building solar and wind hand over fist based on the industry cost studies I cited.

Yes, they’re stop gaps. Do I need to cite every ongoing fusion project or is that also nonsense?

If your stance on the future was so cut and dry the correct solution we wouldn’t be having this conversation. I have solar, a Tesla, and geothermal hvac. It has its place. But going 70% solar and wind isn’t the solution to climate change IMO.  

1 hour ago, skierinvermont said:

You have to provide evidence for opposing viewpoints. You've provided none other than your personal hunches. You don't think the hundreds of scientists that have done hundreds of thousands of hours of research and reviewing of ohc data have considered the amateur objections you have raised? Thermocline barriers and heat content of water are taught in 8th grade science.

I have.

I really don't get why you're being so aggressive.

Are you really that anti nuclear and pro renewable?

You realize both are a stop gap solution anyway, right?

1 hour ago, skierinvermont said:

Your own graphic shows that from 1971-2010 the majority of sea level rise was thermal expansion. My statement was a slight exaggeration I will give you that.

It's good to know you question the data. I'm sure the scientists and peer reviewed journals would welcome your amateur questions. But thank you for openly admitting that your opinions are based on personal hunches and not the work and research of professionals. We will know whose opinions to disregard going forward. You haven't actually cited any sources to support any of your various opinions which are mostly contradicted by professional research organizations.

Should we not question the data? Is that a real position?

The whole point of a forum is to discuss opposing viewpoints.

Here's the link to that graph. https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-climate-change-is-accelerating-sea-level-rise

I simply have a different view on how we should approach the problem than you and knew right away that the effect of expansion of water couldn't be the primary cause of ocean level rise. It will take a lot longer to heat the oceans than the air, and the air has risen by 1°C globally in 100 years. Water has 4.2 times more capacity(will take much longer to warm) for heat than air and as I mentioned before there are thermocline barriers that largely prevent deep mixing.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/global-temperatures?src=eoa-features

5 minutes ago, skierinvermont said:

This is false. The large majority of sea level rise in the past 100 years was due to thermal expansion. The oceans have gained 337 zettajoules of thermal energy since 1955.

No its not. Maybe a 1/3, and I question that. In order to know that number with any precision requires incredible amounts of data points that we certainly didn't have pre 1970.

9 minutes ago, Vice-Regent said:

Thermal expansion brother.

Water is most dense at 40° making it nearly impossible to warm the entire mass of water to cause expansion of any significance.

Also with warmer air temperatures there will be significantly more water in the atmosphere.

57 minutes ago, Vice-Regent said:

Long-term 100 meters seems inevitable if methane feedbacks come online but we have enough time to dismantle anything under threat of inundation.

Brah' if oceans rise 100 meters rip the fabric of civilization. That is incomprehensibly bad which is why even your boy has cognitive dissonance.

There doesnt exist enough ice to raise the level by 100 meters. If every bit of ice melted the consensus is 216', but you're talking probably 1000s of years before we get that far.

1 minute ago, BuffaloWeather said:

I really do fear for the west coast the next few decades. This summer is not going to be pretty as they are already in a drought after their "rainy" season. I was out west quite a bit last summer and saw fires nearly everywhere I went. When we were out to eat all the locals were talking about the lakes drying up so quick.

https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/CurrentMap/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?West

Yea when I was there last fall it was incredible how low all the reservoirs were. I was also taken aback as to how crazy the farming is there. When driving from Sequoia to LA its hours of orange and olive groves where every drop of water is dedicated to the harvest. No grass or greenery to be seen. The river we stayed on was completely diverted at the base of the dam to support the farming. 

Heading to Vegas in May, going to hit up Hoover damn which has to be crazy to see with how low the water is.

8 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

What about hydroelectric?

 

I’m all for tidal or setups like Niagara Falls that don’t destroy river ecosystems. Just look at the Colorado or almost every river system in ca. they’re literally dead. 

10 hours ago, Vice-Regent said:

Cannot build nuclear on coastlines due to rising seas so we would need to pipe in the energy on wires or some other incomprehensible method.

Oceans aren’t rising 100’. Unless you’re on a reef island it’s pretty easy to find some elevation near the cost. 

14 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

Nuclear electricity costs more than twice as much as natural gas, solar and wind electricity (by some estimates 5 times as much). "Building out nuclear" will make electricity more expensive, not less.

https://eu.boell.org/en/2021/04/26/7-reasons-why-nuclear-energy-not-answer-solve-climate-change#:~:text=Barriers to and risks associated,concerns%2C and adverse public opinion.

Sorry but this article is largely an anti nuclear bs hit piece. Just look at what’s going on in Europe right now with electric prices. And the biggest thing that article misses on is scale and the shear volume of petroleum needed to produce the wind and solar power alternative it’s advocating for.