Dark Star

15 minutes ago, EastonSN+ said:

Daily Feb. 14 post. All similar.

Cooler, drier pattern for NYC, but not sustainable?

1 hour ago, forkyfork said:

 

NOT the present situation, this is cumulative.  We have progressed...

7 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

they're going back to coal for some odd reason.  China is doing that too, which is even more of a concern because of their population.  They think they can go to coal now and then reverse course in time to be carbon neutral by 2060.

China has been using coal and expanding their coal.  We should not have to make up the excesses that China produces.  We are already the leader in reducing our net greenhouse emissions...

13 hours ago, North and West said:

Nuclear.

How we have a technology that can produce near limitless clean energy but we don’t use it is annoying.


.

Disposal problems...

8 minutes ago, North and West said:

That would take out the majority of this forum.


.

IF you do the math, and compare the amount of greenhouse gas emitted by bovine before and after Europeans made it to the Americas, there is not a significant difference between the two periods. If that 20% is going to make or break us, then I call Shenanigans...

On 1/31/2024 at 5:15 PM, LibertyBell said:

Indeed, I blame world governments for a lot of it and the UN for allowing fossil fuel lobbyists to participate in the discussions.  They need to be made to realize they are part of the past and will have NO role in the future of the planet.  And while we're at it, we need to ban corporate lobbying and dark money altogether.

 

 

If you noticed, most countries in Europe are abandoning their lofty renewable goals.  

3 hours ago, JustinRP37 said:

Birds running into glass each year far outpaces birds killed by wind turbines. And the numbers are not even close: https://epe.lac-bac.gc.ca/100/201/300/avian_conservation_ecology-ef/v01n01-v16n02/www.ace-eco.org/vol8/iss2/art6/ACE-ECO-2013-568.pdf

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0006320713003522

While we can certainly improve in both regards but window collisions kill an estimated 25 million birds in Canada alone. The USA sees higher estimates. Wind turbines kill around a quarter million birds. 

Also the mining for EVs batteries will occur regardless of EV adoption as lithium battery use increases.The difference is batteries can be recycled and battery health nearly replaced back to 100% with minimal waste.  The true science of sustainability is fascinating once you look at the science and not the “media” reports. 

Except activists aren't necessarily logical, take for instance arsonists on the left coast.  

5 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

But these wind farms are now computerized and they will shut down when a bird approaches.

The planes that hit birds are far worse as are the light pollution of buildings that kill birds, you'll see thousands of dead birds at the bottom of these buildings, not to mention how bad light pollution is for our health.

2 hours ago, NorthShoreWx said:

bxengine's venmo is [email protected]

I don't have Venmo, or any other electronic cash apps.  I can pay by check or if you are ever in Jersey, I can pay cash.  

9 hours ago, BxEngine said:

Next one who asks for a moderator in here without reporting any offending posts has to venmo me the equivalent of a 15 hour overtime tour at my work, since apparently this must be our full time job here? Thanks in advance. 

Sorry bout that.  I just thought this wasn't the thread to keep the old debate going.  However, I am as immature as the next person, and I will easily get drawn into this with my nonsensical input.

21 hours ago, wishcast_hater said:

I disagree. The people with the biggest mouths and the deepest pockets, decide what we should “think”.

Now the push is for batteries and lithium. These mining operations are destroying the landscape in other countries but that’s ok because it’s not for oil. Forrest’s being cut down to make room for solar panels and windmills which kill thousands of birds and displace wildlife But that’s ok because it’s for “renewable” energy.


.

I guarantee if this were the 1980s, a moratorium would have been put on building more wind farms.  Activists would have been climbing them, trying to shut them down to save the birds, including the eagles.  If you have to laugh, please first look up the birds that are being killed by these things.

31 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

While what you're saying does happen and has continued to happen it's not a problem of science but of human greed.  We see this in how the sugar industry sought to suppress research showing that increased sugar consumption leads to diabetes-- and they continue to do so with HFCS.  There's the pesticide issue I've already mentioned with Sygenta and Bayer and Dow with them strongarming the EPA; our regulatory agencies are captured.  And DuPont with PFOA/PFAS doing the same thing.  And then there's the infamous case of Merck and Vioxx, of them attempting to cover up the thousands of deaths caused by this dreadful drug and blacklisting doctors who wouldn't prescribe it.  So, yes money does corrupt humans, but it doesn't corrupt science, which exists independently of any and all humans. 

But by the same token, you're making the case in the wrong direction, the fact is, it's the fossil fuel companies who have been covering up climate change research for decades.  The scientists you're talking about who were taking money to cover up the truth were scientists who worked for the fossil fuel companies.  Most of the time it's the corporation paid scientists whose results must be questioned, not the independent ones who do not get paid for their analyses.

 

I see lies and ignorance on both sides.  Moderator, please...

1 hour ago, LibertyBell said:

I blame these on the filthiness of humans (same with rats.)  On Long Island, there are zero cockroaches, I have not seen a single cockroach in all the time I've been here.  In Brooklyn they were all too common.  Population density issues combined with humans dumping trash everywhere.

I love the alternatives of laser pest killing either with drones automatically or by hand with tools that use concentrated beams of light to kill pests.  I should say when I say pests I mean weeds.  The UN (specifically a panel of scientists who researched this and wrote their conclusion for the UN) specifically has stated that we don't need chemical pesticides or chemical fertilizers, both of which destroy the soil in the long term  and kill off essential pollinators (organic soil farming which retains nutrients better is much more sustainable and much better for the soil than applying chemicals to it to artificially maintain it.)  And then when we have excessive rains, these chemicals run off either into water supply or into bodies of water where they result in toxic algae blooms and massive die offs of sea life too.

 

Waiting for the moderator...

34 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Not to mention the mass extinction event being caused by humans even as we type.

 

None to worry, nuclear winter will fix everything...

48 minutes ago, NEG NAO said:

This second wave of warming aloft should result in cold air outbreaks across much of the US during the middle and latter parts of February.

Unless of course a pacific jet keeps steering warm air into Canada?

Decent cold pocket of air in Quebec, the rest of Canada is rather balmy.  Alaska actually below zero in most places...

9 hours ago, NEG NAO said:

not in this forum - certain unnamed posters always negative no matter what.......

It's called persistence, which at this point is probably more reliable than 14 day outlooks...

30 minutes ago, MJO812 said:

It's getting tiring 

Last winter, the models kept kicking the can down the road.  Amazingly, this season, we had 10 days of winter, so I guess anything is possible?

11 hours ago, EastonSN+ said:

Right, but that may increase snowfall in larger storms that are cold enough.

Perhaps less storms but more snow and less suppression (SE ridge).

Too early to tell.

2 hours ago, lee59 said:

Looks like some heavier precip. in the D.C. area. If that holds together and moves up here, some may get a little more snow than expected. Maybe it is just me  with wishful thinking

? Most of any future precip will likely retrograde back from the north?

2 hours ago, EastonSN+ said:

How do we know that this will result in less snowfall?

I.e. what if we lose the marginal events, but gain additional snowfall in larger events? What if the storms that hit the MA in the past hit us now?

I do not think there is any definitive evidence that our average annual snowfall will be less. 

We are entering another terrible stretch between great stretches like 55 through 69 and 00 through 18, so it's magnified. Remember CPKs average annual snowfall from 70 through 99 was only around 21 inches.

It's warmer now...

51 minutes ago, LibertyBell said:

Hold on Don, we had a snowstorm that dumped 5.0-5.9" of snow with temperatures of 35+ during the wntire storm? How is this possible and which storm was this and what was the snow to liquid ratio in it?  Thanks!
 

No doubt a heavy rate can overcome temperature concerns, but sounds rare indeed?

Fog building in here in Garwood NJ (central Union County).

15 minutes ago, Allsnow said:

That’s a horrible comparison 

That would depend if there was ANY cold air to tap into.  As of right now, there was rain all the way up to the Canadian Border.  I noticed yesterday central Quebec was below zero.  I guess you would have to have pretty intense cyclonic flow to pull enough of the cold air down?

The only thing worse than a 43 degree rain is a 31 degree, plain rain.  (I've seen enough of plain rain, not freezing, below 32 degrees).