Sundog

Today is a bust of a day. Crap day.

Maybe we should move this convo into banter, I would engage a bit more there since I wouldn't feel like I'm dragging the weather thread off topic.

The issue is whether they get the care they were paying for year after year via insurance premiums, not whether they get a medication. BTW the people who are running defence for the healthcare industry are the same people who would call you a killer because of your COVID vaccine haha. You're not on the same side, I promise you. Paying for a service and then getting denied when you need said service is textbook fraud. That CEO was a POS. Oh no he was a father! Who cares. So is Kilmar.

I have a Camellia almost 20 feet tall that's doing well. Currently it's full of big deep pink flowers.

I peaked at 76 degrees and now down to around 72.

The seabreeze is a beautiful thing when inland they are broiling.

The truth is without fossil fuels we would not have our modern civilization. And capitalism is by far the best system humanity has ever conceived (with a realistic chance of being implemented) to help the most people overall. But now we really need to do something about fossil fuels' side effects. Burying our heads in the sand won't make the problem go away. And hoping for the world to unite in some kumbaya moment and move full steam ahead with renewables overnight isn't happening either. Stratospheric aerosols all the way! Doing nothing is not an option and this is a global prolem, not a country one. We should release the aerosols. If countries can release massive amounts of greenhouse gases, then we can release aerosols. What's the difference? We know both alter the climate. So why are greenhouse gases ok to spew but not aerosols? I say let's do it.

I think you mean 750 million years, not thousands. BTW ideally what we do is just keep the average climate we had over the last couple thousand years. We developed civilization during these years and our cities are all built on a coastline that needs to be maintained, because over a billion people live within a couple miles of the coast. I think it would cost muuuuuuuuuuch more money dealing with moving massive cities and huge amounts of people rather than just maintaining the climate we had so that they don't get flooded out.

I don't get what is so hard to understand. I don't like average lifespan being used because high infant mortality rate in the past dragged down their averages. if you made it past childhood you would easily make it into your 60s and 70s and even 80s, even in ancient times. The only difference industrialization made to our lifespans is give us hospitals and medicine so that babies don't die.

There is a difference between statistical and deterministc models.

Air seems pretty clean this morning? No smoke smell here. Is it elevated? Even so, it must be faint because the sunrise looks pretty typical, maybe a bit more vivid.

Fusion is going to make a lot of enemies, even renewable energy companies. I think of plastic recycling, supposedly it was good for the environment. It's actually really bad, as it produces an immense amount of microplastics. Good luck trying to shut down the plastic recycling industry! Haha

There should be a nice sea breeze both tomorrow and Friday for the coast keeping temps down to comfortable levels (for me) after mid afternoon.

There is natural variation in climate and then there's human induced changes. Just like you can die of natural causes or of a drug overdose. One was a natural death, the other self inflicted. Right now humanity is a major drug addict lol

A nice, pleasant, 60 degrees here now.

My favorite temps are 60s, dry, a light breeze and partly cloudy skies.

Shave off 5 degrees and I'd say it was perfect.

We are already running a global climate altering experiment.

Nuclear power is the best solution for producing clean baseline power, and power that can be spun up quickly when there is an energy demand spike. You can't have full renewable when a lot of that is just not producing energy at a steady rate 24/7. Winds die down, the Sun goes down. I don't believe battery technology is close to where it needs to be to store solar/wind energy to the point where if those two aren't producing any energy, that batteries can pick up the slack. Again, it's the need for a steady, baseline level of energy and very quick spin up of additional energy in the event of an energy demand spike where nuclear comes into play. Nuclear is very safe. Fukushima is not a good example. It was a 50 year old plant, next to the ocean, and in a major earthquake zone. Those are very specific environmental and geological conditions/dangers that are hard to replicate in many places around the world. For example, none of the factors that casued Fukishima to get damaged exist in large swaths of the USA. The Earth doesn't care who polluted and how much humans pollute per capita in different countries. All it knows is that its heating up and it's getting bad. This notion that countries should be given time to catch up in terms of pollution since they were slower to industrialize is completely insane and not a serious positition if someone truly cares about the Earth. The technology TODAY didn't exist when the USA was industrializing. There is no excuse for China to be building TODAY dozens of new coal power plants since now there are many other options that simply didn't exist in the past. I also disagree regarding the aerosols. One can say that solar is a type of futuristic technology. Certainly solar is a true deviation from the traditional "turn water into steam to turn a turbine" method of energy generation. If we didn't give it a chance then it would have never flourished into such an important energy source. Aerosol usage is better than hoping the world does the right thing one day. I don't see why it would discourage the reductiuon of fossil fuels. If anything it may actually give the world time to organically shift over to renewables all while keeping the Earth from burning up in the meantime.

I am a supporter of aerosol injection into the stratosphere. It is suprisingly feasible and not outrageously expensive. I only support it because there is no way that we are not only stopping CO2 emissions, but even reduce them from the atmosphere. The USA is not the world. Most emissions come from China and India. I also want a ton of nuclear plants built. But for some reason environmentalists are against both nuclear and aersol injections. I consider myself a pragmatist. Obviously ideally the world somehow reduces the greenhouse gas levels back to 1880 levels. But that's not happening and we need to do SOMETHING. To me, sitting idle is not an option. And again, we are not the world. We can't solve this on our own, even if we get down to zero emissions in the USA. At the same time, I want do move to renewable as much as possible worldwide so that we don't need to mask the warming effects with annual aerosol injections forever. I am also aware that masking the effects of the warming doesn't make greenhouse gases neutral. They will still acidify the oceans for example. But that's happening anyway, we might as well try to kill the heating effects at least.

Too hot, had to turn on the AC.

If we reduce CO2 levels (no chance lol) then water vapor will also reduce naturally. No need to do anything about the water vapor.

Back up to 76 degrees. Oh well. At least lows are still comfortable. I dread the lows of 75+ degrees with a 70+ dewpoint that have become all too common.

I'm catching the most western edge of the sea breeze and have dropped to 73 from a high of 80 earlier. Much better now.

Norway Maples are a terrible urban street tree. Now we know that (or maybe we always did) but they were extensively planted in NYC many decades back. They are off the planting list now. I have to give these trees credit in two areas, (when healthy) they produce a very solid shade and their fall color is gorgeous. Problem is they grow like crap in the city so they are usually looking sick.