Jump to content

Buckeyes_Suck

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,693

  • Joined

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Buckeyes_Suck

    Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

    in Climate Change

    Posted

    7 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

    where does nuclear fit in here?  why not substitute nuclear for methane (what you call "natural" gas)-- I have major issues with methane and it's definitely not clean.  I'd far rather have more nuclear plants and ban all fossil fuels entirely

     

    Completely agree with this. Plus if we aggressively built out nuclear electricity could be much cheaper, allowing for tech like desalination to be affordable. 

    Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

    in Climate Change

    Posted

    There's a couple great podcasts out there on this technology, could also be key in reducing climate change. Once the design is commercialized it could prove a clean source of electrify, slag that could be used for roads/concrete additives, and syngas that could be used in hydrogen fuel cells. We would eventually end up "mining" land fills to feed them.

    https://seapowermagazine.org/vaporizing-trash-with-a-compact-waste-to-energy-system-that-runs-at-10000-degrees-c/

    Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

    in Climate Change

    Posted

    6 hours ago, skierinvermont said:

    It is cheaper, more efficient, less disruptive, and better for the planet to prevent it. The solutions exist and are already cost competitive or cheaper than Fossil fuels. We just need to accelerate the adoption. Wind and solar are already the primary source of new power generation in this country. When a power company decides what to build they are typically choosing wind and solar already. It would not cost that much to significantly accelerate what the free market is already doing.

    This is where we disagree. I completely understand the severity of the situation, but I also understand what a small part what we do here in the US will contribute to your solution. You have to look at the problem globally. While it make not be cost prohibitive here to build solar or wind over coal/natural gas because of regulation and subsidy most of the world doesn't not have that luxury. 

    I've been in manufacturing plants all over the world. In Pakistan for example the food plants have their own diesel generators. Even if there was solar or wind (EXTREMELY cost prohibitive) there's no infrastructure to get them the power. Where would the money come from to build out infrastructure globally to prevent global warming?

    In general the western world is living in a bubble, naïve to the complexity and scale of the problem.

    Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

    in Climate Change

    Posted

    9 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

    It is not realistic, nor efficient when when does not clearly get, believe or appreciate the scale and degree of the crisis.

    What does me coming up with solutions have to with identifying the problem.   For the sake of discussion, the solution is

                                    stop engaging in that which with kill us -

    There is no remediation or moving to new geographies to avoid problem areas ...that which you cited evinces someone that has an overly simplified, therefore inadequate understanding of the larger manifold of moving parts in the climate holocaust.  You don't possess that acumen. 

    You don't.

    That’s not fair, considering you know so little about me. 
    I own a Tesla and motorcycle and live on enough land to support myself and more should I need to. 
    I have geothermal and solar. 
    I’m pretty’s sure I’m doing my part. 
    That doesn’t preclude me from having a realistic view of solutions to the problem and the reason I challenged you to provide is that I’m guessing your solutions are unrealistic. IE everyone come together and immediately recognize this existential crisis and put all their effort into stopping it. 

    Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

    in Climate Change

    Posted

    31 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

    You just repeated your same mantra back to us.  I'll try to address some stand outs then I'll move along from this conversation. 

    #1  In short, it is preventable; the solution is just not desirable...  and that's what's really at stake.  Those types of questions... 'why should we, if they won't' or another one of my favorites, 'we'll be dead before it matters' ( fecklessly immoral) ...  these are all really stall tactics. They defer acceptance, or allow continued profligate practices by sending the issues spinning in discussion endlessly...  Bargaining is sometimes referred.  Unfortunately, the reality is probably not tenable by the minds of most - we are already doomed.  That's probably it.  We cannot change the momentum of 8 billion per capital species mass, as quickly as it necessarily must change.  

    #2 That does not alter the truth of the problem - it only makes the point. Anthropomorphic activity is forcing environmental break downs - and it's not just CC by the way..  There are major toxicity problems ... land and sea.  Where does one begin. Human male sperm counts are down all over the world - which may not be a bad thing, ironically.  But microplastics... Narrow temperature tolerant phytoplankton die offs in the ocean.  It comes across as though the scope of knowledge/awareness isn't there frankly.  This has a ginormous spectrum of components.

    #3  The Earth is presently in a mass extinction event ... That is biological fact, not mere conjecture. And the reason, based upon all metrics of science in the cause-and-effect relationship, is that climate is changing faster than adaptation rates..  I said that in the previous - so your response is incorrect.  If one registered what that means, that statement of yours does not logically follow.  So... comes off a bit like conceptual avoidance. 

    You are right that humans are adaptive ... but there is a tolerance range there, too.  What we are warning as climate and atmospheric scientists, is a reality outside that range. One cannot adapt at a certain point - let alone large groups, to whole populations having to cooperate during dwindling resources.  Again, the Earth's biological system, to which we owe our entire existence, is an integrated whole. If enough systems break down, we come under direct existential threats.

    #4 Depends what is meant by 'all our resources' - ...  It's a race really ...

     

    Its not a mantra, it's what I believe a more realistic and efficient approach to a huge problem.

    You're not addressing the insurmountable challenges I listed. You're simply stating problems with no real solutions.

     

    Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

    in Climate Change

    Posted

    1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

    Economic pressure will stop fossil fuel consumption as renewable are about at equal cost now and will get cheaper while fossil fuels will only get more expensive.

     

    Completely agree, and I think that Fusion will become commercialized sometime in the next 50 years only further pushing that trend. The key will be that we share that tech globally. 

    • Like 1

    Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

    in Climate Change

    Posted

    On 3/18/2022 at 2:24 PM, Typhoon Tip said:

    Well ... you did encourage "Thoughts?"  so 

    Two retorts:

    One, so what?  I don't understand this logic, because it strikes me as not understanding, or taking seriously ...or believing ...what ever is the misconception,  the inevitability of the crisis.  One that ends in finite circumstance, the other side of which money is irrelevant.  

    It is one where we and countless other species are dead.  Because of that...

    Two, I don't believe choice of geography is any kind of panacea to the crisis of the CC.  Metaphor:  We don't go to the top of the hill and continue to engage in aspects that cause the water to rise, thinking we "might" not be causing the flood.

    We stop what we are doing until that is proven, because what is at stake, is your death. 

    This is not a human problem.   This is an Earth biosphere problem.  We are inextricably dependent upon the vitality of countless interacting life.  CC is killing at all scales along the spectrum, because it is occurring faster than adaptation rates.  D(t) > d(evolution) = extinction.  That is a basic equation that has played out on this planet, based upon all scientific paleoclimatology and epoch reconciliation studies there are, over and over and over again.  So, what are we doing?  we are observing the d(T) > adaptation rates ..which is tantamount to exceeding evolution.  

    This can't end well, at global scale.

    As an afterthought ... this weird money thing. Money is an illusion. It is not real.  It is only become socially, we all agree it has value - it does not have any intrinsic realness in/to Nature.   It is not a fundamental law, like PV=NRT, or E=MC2, or C2 = A2 + B2 ... the 7 basic principles of quantum mechanics, without the consistency of which everything as we know them break down.  

    It all just comes back to the same aspect we hammered page and pages  to years ago.  This is all because climate change and it's perils are too slow moving for the human senses to compel a change.   That's it.  At the individual level ...integrating the whole groups, integrating the population masses, CC has too few real time live "corporeal advocates"   If one walked out their front door in the morning, and immediately was punched in the nose by heat fist, they probably wouldn't take a whole week, much less 50 years, to change their f point of view on the veracity of CC. 

    I keep hearing suggestions and narratives that really dance around acceptance.   We can't do what we have been doing.  That is the truth. Nothing else.  Moving the problem from one location to another, within the same total manifold of Earth's system, does nothing to fix the Globally integrated problem.  Since we know mathematically human activity is at least contributing, we can't keep doing it in the off chance that the amount allows us to keep profligating.  The logical thing to do, is stop doing it until you can prove otherwise. 

    On the first point I'm not arguing to not push to reduce emissions, or that a warming in climate isn't bad for a lot of species. The argument is whether its preventable considering that what we do here doesn't prevent China or India from more than offsetting. Furthermore what happens when other countries in Africa and S America start industrializing on large scales? Hopefully then we will have figured out fusion, or better embrace fission and help countries build out this way.

    On the second point lets say you're right and money really is an illusion. That doesn't make the things you buy with money an illusion. For example, unless you plan to institute a global totalitarian economy you have no way to make enough people do the things you want them to do in order to either stop climate change or prepare for it. You need money to convince them. Furthermore scarcity is real, and were seeing signs of it all around us now. To simply say we can produce more of whatever it is we need to solve the problem isn't realistic, same goes for money.

    The most likely outcome in my opinion as that people will slowly adapt to the change in climate, as will most species of animals. Its no different than the migration south that was seen with the invention of air conditioning. Florida used to be a sparsely populated swamp land. In all of this lies opportunity too. Cities around the great lakes like Detroit, Chicago, Buffalo, Cleveland are poised to become meccas in terms of resources and climate.

    So to my original point, should we really be spending all of our resources trying to stop this freight train or put some real though into the future and what it will be like and stop building in places that will be highly susceptible to climate change?

     

    Upstate NY Banter and General Discussion..

    in Upstate New York/Pennsylvania

    Posted

    4 minutes ago, BuffaloWeather said:

    Chiefs are trading six-time Pro-Bowl WR Tyreek Hill to the Miami Dolphins for five draft picks: a 2022 1st-round pick (No. 29), a 2nd-round pick (No. 50) and a 4th-round pick, as well as 4th- and 6th-round picks in the 2023 draft, sources tell ESPN

    I got a buddy out in Joplin MO who's a huge chiefs fan, going to buy him a Hill jersey...

    • Haha 2

    Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change

    in Climate Change

    Posted

    I’m sure someone has brought this up in this thread before but I wrote about this as the solution in college and still believe it’s where we should put most of our eggs. My argument in college was that climate change isn’t the issue but where we chose to live is.  The main reason I still support that stance is that while it’s 99% likely that we’re the cause of climate change what if we’re not? Then all the money we’re spending to prevent would have been wasted. 
     

    They’re are other arguments to made about some of the horrible places we’ve decided to over populate as well, ie killing the Colorado river  

    Thoughts?
     

    https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220310-the-illinois-town-valmeyer-could-be-a-model-for-relocation

×
×
  • Create New...