Vice-Regent
-
Posts
1,732 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Blogs
Forums
American Weather
Media Demo
Store
Gallery
Posts posted by Vice-Regent
-
-
There are massive holes in the renewables argument as well @skierinvermont. Long-term I don't think it's workable we would need to reduce demand by as much as we increase growth due to shortages of raw materials and what not. Our first priority should be energy storage and recycling as you have beautifully laid out for us.
-
3 minutes ago, Buckeyes_Suck said:
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.
Thermal expansion brother.
-
8 hours ago, Buckeyes_Suck said:
Oceans aren’t rising 100’. Unless you’re on a reef island it’s pretty easy to find some elevation near the cost.
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.
-
3 hours ago, LibertyBell said:
On the trajectory we're on right now it's going to be difficult to avoid 2.0C, let alone 1.5C. I think the current best estimate is for 2.2C warming?
And why are nations like China on a spending spree for building more coal plants? Hopefully they see the light soon.
The nuclear reactor technology is simply unable to keep pace with China's domestic demand. Doesn't scale very well where we need it the most.
Pandora's box speaks but is anyone listening? Will we accept our economic and human losses or wait for AGW to do the heavy lifting?
-
4 hours ago, Buckeyes_Suck said:
Completely agree with this. Plus if we aggressively built out nuclear electricity could be much cheaper, allowing for tech like desalination to be affordable.
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.
-
2 hours ago, LibertyBell said:
I've been to India a few times and seen the mess they've made there. The air is so polluted you can't even breathe it without suffering from headaches and burning eyes. That's the case in large parts of eastern Asia. Too many cars, too many people, all crowded into a small area in extremely densely populated cities. Resources are limited so you can't keep expanding exponentially, at some point you hit the ceiling of resources. It's the same reason we control animal populations. It has to start stabilizing at some point where births=deaths. Technological industrial civilizations are a huge part of the problem, since before that happened, we didn't have most of these issues. The so-called "green" revolution that started incorporating more genetically modified crops, overuse of chemical pesticides and fertilizers has also destroyed the fertility of the soil and depleted its nutrients as the third world is now finding out in Asia and Africa and reverting back to using much more sustainable organic farming techniques.
Populations will certainly be culled by the limits to growth processes so I certainly don't believe there is any need to bloody our hands directly. We have already done this perhaps collectively to ourselves.
Live and learn I suppose or maybe we are just doomed to live in the moment in perpetuity. For better or worse.
-
1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:
why "growing" is not a good thing, the entire planet needs to be capped at two children per family
It is the resource use per capita (per individual) that is most relevant. This is the first post where I really started to question your integrity but you wouldn't be the only one.
It's just thermodynamics man. All readily available fossil fuels will be burned for consumption until nothing remains or we become incapacitated. We have all been blindsided by Pandora's box also known as technological industrial civilization.
-
14 hours ago, pazzo83 said:
mid 60s at 11pm in February. Sure
What does it mean? Wherever it is we are going with it.
-
1
-
-
On 2/12/2022 at 5:35 PM, LibertyBell said:
So much needs to be changed, this is way more than just about climate change, it goes to the very dysfunctional way this country (and world) is run.
Agreed brother LB.
It is just not manifesting in the way prior and current generations had hoped for. The rise of authoritarianism can lead to "negative" feedbacks in society.
-
1
-
-
6 hours ago, LibertyBell said:
It's interesting that once you start hearing these sounds, they seem to get worse and worse-- like some kind of horror story.
It looks like severe tinnitus but that is the optimistic outlook for what is going on in regards to the hum phenomenon.
Many things can cause tinnitus that are also concerning or poorly understood and which are related to exposure to modern technology.
-
6 hours ago, LibertyBell said:
Definitely don't want that in my body. People are catching on to the terrors of technology.
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:
It's worth considering we all depend on technology but when it's disruptive to our communities we must live with the cost. We are left holding the bag per se.
Before our cities were designed around the automobile you could easily live within walking distance of your business or occupation. Now we are forced into additional complexity and personal expense as for most people owning an automobile is absolutely necessary. This also includes it's own variety of domestic disturbances and noise pollution.
-
1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:
Aren't those windfarms supposed to be computer controlled so the blades on an individual turbine would stop if a bird was going to hit it?
I think birds dying by window impacts might be more common.
Always a solution for something. It's the cumulative impact overtime and once it scales there are sure to be more in the pipeline.
I have just lost faith in civilization. I may be bitter but I can afford to walk away I could cut my electricity tomorrow and still be fine. Collapse early and avoid the rush. Saying we are going to depend on a highly complex technology with many moving parts such as a wind farm is not in line with a good life.
You want to be as self-sufficient as possible and reduce your dependence on technology where it is convenient.
-
5 hours ago, LibertyBell said:
Groundbreaking on the new 25 mile windfarm being built off of Long Island....it will power 70,000 homes on Long Island by 2023
Top of the shelf cognitive dissonance. I believe shorebirds use that area for migrations as well.
Civilization has no future brother. Someone in the future might prefer to eat the shorebirds than sit inside a climate controlled house for rich people powered by offshore wind.
-
1 hour ago, csnavywx said:
Thanks for that -- that comes out to an additional 0.15-0.25C of warming at equilibrium, if I did my math right. Not insignificant.
Doing some additional reading. Other potential causes so far:
Reduction in ocean shipping SO2 by 80% due to progressive sulfur fuel content regulations (including new 2020 IMO regulations) regarding bunker fuel. This would reduce cloud cover and dimethylsulfide (DMS) removal by cloud processes, reducing available OH to sink methane emissions. This is a potential issue in its own right even without considering methane effects, with some considerable uncertainty as of now -- ranging from a fairly small effect (0.05W/m2) to a relatively huge one (up to 0.5W/m2), large enough to produce a termination shock on its own, or a coupled one when combined with methane effects. More data and study needed on that one for sure. However, I would note that CERES has detected a large energy imbalance of absorbed solar radiation over the NPAC and NATL over the last few years.
CO2 fertilization causing an increase in net primary productivity (NPP), which would also increase microbial methane emissions.
If the problem regarding absent negative feedbacks is really that severe not only do the ocean's have more room to heat (forcing in the pipeline) but also do it more rapidly.
Ocean heat uptake is poorly misunderstood especially by the public. 98% of the additional radiative forcing goes into the ocean and the remainder land regions and ice caps. This may be a rare instance where I suggest geoengineering as the problem appears to be very severe and an extinction event in it's own right (first in the seas and spreading onto land).
-
2 hours ago, H2O said:
It is just so much nicer to not get too invested in every single potential threat.
Because it's so nice outside. I feel you.
-
12 hours ago, LibertyBell said:
Obvious sarcasm I hope. Why did we wait so long this won't come soon enough to save the billions of people who rely on fossil fuel energy.
I do not endorse limitless supplies of energy for a small minority or at all.
-
I always visit these threads when @A-L-E-K posts for obvious reasons. Using the most unsavory topic ever to exist for a science or political forum is questionable.
As to speak or write about it without an emotional consideration is deeply troubling. Wait and see my friends.
-
-
8 hours ago, LibertyBell said:
this is excellent and the future looks bright for both wind and solar there, we're building a 300 mile array of windfarms just offshore here in NY and NJ too.
As always these technologies are fossil fuel extenders and a luxury seldomly appreciated. The amount of material inputs and the general lifespan of a wind or solar farm do not make them permanent solutions.
With that said I think it is promising and a good investment if you live in the United States.
-
6 minutes ago, WEATHER53 said:
The last storm that was easily pushed out had a 1040 high settling into West PA. This cold source does not have as much strength and is mostly settled in instead of moving in.
That high pressure gradient was roaring in near white-out conditions if not outright momentarily. Unreal storm for us that Jan 3rd.
Not to boast but It was actually too violent to be enjoyable.
-
Just now, alexderiemer said:
Is it really worth chasing for 5" though? We got more than that January 3rd...
Sent from my SM-F711U using Tapatalk
Real talk Alex. I find the appeal of this one much greater since it is occurring during the day and should be less windy versus Jan 3rd.
Some prefer the wind but nasomuch here.
-
6 minutes ago, stormtracker said:
If I'm ever in a war, pinned down in a foxhole with enemy troops advancing on me from every direction, I want Roger Smith in there with me. He'd take out his M16 and look out into the battlefield, seeing 20 tanks, 40 howitzers on all sides and 400 troops closing in and tell me, with a straight face...."dude, we are going to f*ck them up!"
-
1
-
-
Just now, Weather Will said:
I think the wind and cold may be the biggest story for those of us north and west of the city. WB 12Z NAM Sat am.
Go home NAM you are drunk. Still going to be remarkable regardless.
Occasional Thoughts on Climate Change
in Climate Change
Posted
Fusion will never be scaled up enough. There is a reason why they went for red button "solutions" to scale down demand so growth can fulfill demand. We need everything in our arsenal to overcome and survive a future that doesn't want us.
This is the bed that we have made for ourselves. Inertia is difficult if not impossible to erase.