Page 39 of 58

Re: The Global Warming Thread

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2019 3:15 pm
by Paingod
Trump: Grab 'em by the vortex and make the jet stream. You can do whatever you want when you're rich.

Re: The Global Warming Thread

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2019 4:09 pm
by Isgrimnur


CBS News
In a statement to CBS News, NOAA said that the tweet was not made in response to Mr. Trump, but was "something NOAA routinely puts out when we get an extreme cold snap such as the one we're in now. "

Re: The Global Warming Thread

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2019 4:13 pm
by Jaymann
By the time it gets so warm as to eliminate winter storms, humans will be extinct.

Re: The Global Warming Thread

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2019 4:36 pm
by Alefroth
stessier wrote: Tue Jan 29, 2019 2:53 pm
Kraken wrote: Tue Jan 29, 2019 2:05 pm I'm sure someone just needs to explain this to Trump. :grund:
I'm sure he'd just conclude we need to do better raking the jet stream or some such.
The wall just became 50,000 ft.

Re: The Global Warming Thread

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2019 6:21 pm
by Defiant
pr0ner wrote: Tue Jan 29, 2019 12:09 pm Trump is at it again, this time actively calling for Global Warming (also known as "Global Waming" in Trump speak).


DJT, in case of deletion wrote:In the beautiful Midwest, windchill temperatures are reaching minus 60 degrees, the coldest ever recorded. In coming days, expected to get even colder. People can’t last outside even for minutes. What the hell is going on with Global Waming? Please come back fast, we need you!

Re: The Global Warming Thread

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2019 12:44 pm
by naednek
GreenGoo wrote: Fri Jan 25, 2019 2:36 am

Apparently she and Sarah's father got into it in december.


Wow I have to be living in a cave. I never knew Sarah Huckabee's dad was Mike Huckabee. How embarrassing

Re: The Global Warming Thread

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2019 1:20 pm
by Alefroth
naednek wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 12:44 pm
GreenGoo wrote: Fri Jan 25, 2019 2:36 am

Apparently she and Sarah's father got into it in december.


Wow I have to be living in a cave. I never knew Sarah Huckabee's dad was Mike Huckabee. How embarrassing
For both?

Re: The Global Warming Thread

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2019 1:24 pm
by Ralph-Wiggum
For her or for you?

Re: The Global Warming Thread

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2019 2:02 pm
by pr0ner
naednek wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 12:44 pm
GreenGoo wrote: Fri Jan 25, 2019 2:36 am

Apparently she and Sarah's father got into it in december.


Wow I have to be living in a cave. I never knew Sarah Huckabee's dad was Mike Huckabee. How embarrassing
How did you not know this.

Re: The Global Warming Thread

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2019 3:46 pm
by naednek
pr0ner wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 2:02 pm
naednek wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 12:44 pm
GreenGoo wrote: Fri Jan 25, 2019 2:36 am

Apparently she and Sarah's father got into it in december.


Wow I have to be living in a cave. I never knew Sarah Huckabee's dad was Mike Huckabee. How embarrassing
How did you not know this.
again must be a cave. I guess I got tired of paying attention after Trump getting rid of the various press secretaries.

Re: The Global Warming Thread

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:03 pm
by Enough
Interesting and depressing study of the University College of London. TLDR, colonization of the Americas resulted in so many deaths (50 million potentially) that it triggered massive land change to forests from previously agriculturally-kept lands. This triggered crazy carbon uptake into the new sinks and viola, a mini-ice age was born. :shock:

Re: The Global Warming Thread

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2019 8:12 pm
by Holman
naednek wrote: Wed Jan 30, 2019 12:44 pm
GreenGoo wrote: Fri Jan 25, 2019 2:36 am

Apparently she and Sarah's father got into it in december.


Wow I have to be living in a cave. I never knew Sarah Huckabee's dad was Mike Huckabee. How embarrassing
Did you think she got the job on merit?

Re: The Global Warming Thread

Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:05 pm
by Z-Corn
I just hope some day I can see eye-to-eye with her on some of these issues...

Re: The Global Warming Thread

Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:27 pm
by naednek
Z-Corn wrote: Thu Jan 31, 2019 9:05 pm I just hope some day I can see eye-to-eye with her on some of these issues...
lol

Re: The Global Warming Thread

Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:03 am
by Isgrimnur
WaPo
Soon, beachgoers won’t be able to buy certain top-selling sunscreens along parts of the Florida Keys.

The Key West City Commission voted Tuesday night to ban sunscreens containing oxybenzone and octinoxate, two chemicals that have been shown to be damaging to coral reefs. Beginning in January 2021, Key West will ban such sunscreens from sale within city limits — taking a cue from Hawaii, which became the first state to pass a similar ban.
...
For years, oxybenzone and octinoxate have been used to protect people’s skin from UV radiation, but some research has shown that skin care products containing these chemicals can wash away from the skin while swimming or bathing and seep into the water, causing damage to coral reefs.
...
Last summer, Hawaii passed legislation banning skin-care companies from selling and distributing sunscreens on the islands that contain oxybenzone and octinoxate. The bill was opposed by various companies and business associations and even some dermatologists, who worried it might discourage people from wearing sunscreen. Still, Gov. David Ige (D) signed the bill, making Hawaii the first state to enact legislation designed to protect marine ecosystems by banning such sunscreens.
...
The National Park Service has urged people to take a “reef friendly” approach to sunscreen shopping, instead buying skin-care products that contain titanium oxide or zinc oxide, which are considered natural alternatives to the two chemicals that will soon be banned from sale in Key West.

Re: The Global Warming Thread

Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 3:26 pm
by Defiant
I'm very disappointed, though I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, that the new "Green New Deal" proposal excludes Nuclear Energy.

The Green New Deal proposed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D) today excludes nuclear energy from the proposed mix. If it were ever actually attempted nationally, it would increase greenhouse gas emissions — just as a similar effort did in Vermont.

The written statement distributed by the office of Ocasio-Cortez says "the plan is to transition off of nuclear."

Senator Bernie Sanders and climate activist Bill McKibben. Both insist the world can be powered on renewables alone. But consider what’s actually happened in their own state.

In 2005, Vermont legislators promised to reduce emissions 25% below 1990 levels by 2012, and 50% below 1990 levels by 2028, through the use of renewables and energy efficiency only.

What’s happened since? Vermont’s emissions rose 16.3%. That’s more than twice as much as national emissions rose during the same period.

Re: The Global Warming Thread

Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 4:11 pm
by pr0ner
Defiant wrote: Thu Feb 07, 2019 3:26 pm I'm very disappointed, though I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, that the new "Green New Deal" proposal excludes Nuclear Energy.

The Green New Deal proposed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D) today excludes nuclear energy from the proposed mix. If it were ever actually attempted nationally, it would increase greenhouse gas emissions — just as a similar effort did in Vermont.

The written statement distributed by the office of Ocasio-Cortez says "the plan is to transition off of nuclear."

Senator Bernie Sanders and climate activist Bill McKibben. Both insist the world can be powered on renewables alone. But consider what’s actually happened in their own state.

In 2005, Vermont legislators promised to reduce emissions 25% below 1990 levels by 2012, and 50% below 1990 levels by 2028, through the use of renewables and energy efficiency only.

What’s happened since? Vermont’s emissions rose 16.3%. That’s more than twice as much as national emissions rose during the same period.
I agree that ignoring nuclear power as a way to provide energy without adding to climate change is a bit short sighted.

The answer for how they'll pay for the Green New Deal is a bit flippant, too (emphasis mine):
How will you pay for it?
The same way we paid for the New Deal, the 2008 bank bailout and extended quantitative easing programs. The same way we paid for World War II and all our current wars. The Federal Reserve can extend credit to power these projects and investments and new public banks can be created to extend credit. There is also space for the government to take an equity stake in projects to get a return on investment. At the end of the day, this is an investment in our economy that should grow our wealth as a nation, so the question isn't how will we pay for it, but what will we do with our new shared prosperity.
I agree that something radical must be done to combat climate change, and it needs to be done now, but creating the many trillions of dollars needed to do it out of thin air doesn't seem like the best way to pay for it (to me, anyway).

Re: The Global Warming Thread

Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 4:22 pm
by Remus West
The problem with nuclear power is and always has been what to do with the waste. Producing it may cause less emission problems but the waste problem is another story. Long term solar and wind power should reduce emissions just as well and without that waste issue.

Admittedly though I do not know enough to really have an informed opinion on the matter. I just know that they tried storing waste near the city I work in and then they are worried they did it wrong and it leaked.

Re: The Global Warming Thread

Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 4:58 pm
by Chrisoc13
Quantitative easing to pay for it... Even if I could get behind some of the ideas (and I could get behind some but not most) that's not an ok way to "pay" for it in my opinion.

Re: The Global Warming Thread

Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 5:02 pm
by Zaxxon
Chrisoc13 wrote: Thu Feb 07, 2019 4:58 pm Quantitative easing to pay for it... Even if I could get behind some of the ideas (and I could get behind some but not most) that's not an ok way to "pay" for it in my opinion.
I haven't had a chance to dig into this proposal yet, but just as a drive-by comment: climate change is one of those fun things that we're simply going to pay for. We can do nothing, and have gigantic costs in a few decades. Or we can do something, and have much less gigantic but still huge costs sooner than that (and also large costs in a few decades, since we've already partially screwed the pooch).

In short, how we pay for it is far, far less important than that we figure out a plan of action and implement it post-haste. Delaying is by far the most expensive option.

Re: The Global Warming Thread

Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 5:08 pm
by Kraken
Next-gen molten salt reactors largely sidestep safety and waste objections. The primary problem with building them is regulatory -- as a new technology (from the 1950s!), they have even more hurdles to clear than a conventional nuke plant. They aren't without their own problems, but in the near term they are nuclear's best hope.

Re: The Global Warming Thread

Posted: Thu Feb 07, 2019 5:33 pm
by LordMortis
I briefly saw a neat thing on a self self assembling and self disassembling tower that would, in essence, act as a giant battery using the premise of gravity batteries. I wish I had time to review the whole thing... and the presence of mind to note the link so I could later review the whole thing.

google says

https://qz.com/1355672/stacking-concret ... re-energy/

Re: The Global Warming Thread

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:16 am
by Defiant
Apparently, according to the Green New Deal FAQ, the Green New Deal will guarantee "Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work"

Like the guy that was supposed to go through and make sure there weren't any embarrassing mistakes in the documents that got released. :ninja: :wink:

Re: The Global Warming Thread

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:56 am
by RunningMn9
Out of curiosity, where did this new green deal come from that AOC is fronting?

Re: The Global Warming Thread

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:39 am
by Defiant
RunningMn9 wrote: Fri Feb 08, 2019 9:56 am Out of curiosity, where did this new green deal come from that AOC is fronting?
The idea has floated around for a while, although I don't know who put their input into this resolution, apart from the offices of Ocasio-Cortez and Markey.

Re: The Global Warming Thread

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:46 am
by Defiant
"A Green New Deal is a massive investment in renewable energy production and would not include creating new nuclear plants," read a fact sheet posted on the homepage of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). "It's unclear if we will be able to decommission every nuclear plant within 10 years, but the plan is to transition off of nuclear and all fossil fuels as soon as possible."

Within hours, that language had disappeared from the congresswoman's website, and her staff went silent on questions of how and why it vanished.
What was left after the vanishing fact sheet was the original six-page resolution, which called for meeting 100 percent of the United States' power demand with "clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources."

It made no mention of the nation's nuclear reactors, which face the threat of closure in regional markets across the Northeast and Midwest where gas plants and wind power offer lower-cost electricity.

Adding to the confusion, Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), the plan's Senate sponsor, told reporters at a press conference near the steps of the Capitol that their nonbinding resolution was technology-neutral, suggesting that nuclear could still be on the table.

"The resolution is silent on any individual technology which can move us toward a solution of this problem. This is a resolution that does not have individual prescriptions in it, so it is silent," Markey told reporters. When asked about the fact sheet and its intent to ban nuclear, he responded, "That is not part of the resolution."

Nuclear boosters grumbled about the confusion but said they believe the noncommittal resolution is proof that backers of the "Green New Deal" support nuclear power.
https://www.eenews.net/stories/1060120029

Re: The Global Warming Thread

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 12:50 pm
by Paingod
Nuclear isn't that bad as long as it doesn't break or get left on the roadside forever. Maine Yankee still has a huge quantity of radioactive waste sitting where the facility was more than a decade later, and still have no plans to move it.

Re: The Global Warming Thread

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:10 pm
by GreenGoo
I used to be a big proponent of Nuclear, but the issue of waste containment/disposal has yet to be solved, and it's a huge deal. I get that if nukes can get us through the next 50-100 years so we don't all die a painful climate killing death it's a good thing, but I don't agree that doing that at the cost of creating a nuclear wasteland (through water contamination and such) is a great idea.

There are already so many cases of poor to criminal waste management (I think maybe paingod's link shows some of that? I didn't get a chance to read it yet) that I'm hesitant to throw my full support behind nuclear power.

Like I said, I used to a full blown nuclear supporter, but that was when I was younger and had naively believed that we'd found acceptable solutions to nuclear waste.

Re: The Global Warming Thread

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 3:04 pm
by Skinypupy
Defiant wrote: Fri Feb 08, 2019 8:16 am Apparently, according to the Green New Deal FAQ, the Green New Deal will guarantee "Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work"

Like the guy that was supposed to go through and make sure there weren't any embarrassing mistakes in the documents that got released. :ninja: :wink:
Not like they would get any support from the right on any of these ideas, but that one single word ("unwilling") pretty much guarantees this won't gain even the slightest bit of traction with moderates either.

It's being hammered over and over again, and rightfully so (imo).

Re: The Global Warming Thread

Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2019 4:13 pm
by Max Peck
Well, I'm unwilling to work and I enjoy economic security. Why deny it to others? :coffee:
Spoiler:
Retirement rocks!

Re: The Global Warming Thread

Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2019 6:28 pm
by Holman

Re: The Global Warming Thread

Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2019 6:33 pm
by Kraken
Ignorance is worst when it's loud and proud.

Re: The Global Warming Thread

Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2019 6:40 pm
by Zaxxon
It's almost as though we are led by an unintelligent person.

Re: The Global Warming Thread

Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:17 pm
by Holman
You ain't seen nothing yet.


Re: The Global Warming Thread

Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2019 11:59 pm
by RunningMn9
I’m pretty sure that like half of all my tweets are to that tool bag, letting him know what a goddamn idiot he is.

Re: The Global Warming Thread

Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 12:46 pm
by Defiant
So setting aside the the GND's embarrasing rollout, where they accidentally released an unfinished FAQ and then had to walk back and keeping in mind that it's just a goals-oriented resolution than anything more concrete, looking at the actual resolution, I see...
providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States, with a focus on frontline and vulnerable communities, so those communities may be full and equal participants in the Green New Deal mobilization;
ensuring the use of democratic and participatory processes that are inclusive of and led by frontline and vulnerable communities and workers to plan, implement, and administer the Green New Deal mobilization at the local level;
ensuring that the Green New Deal mobilization creates high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages, hires local workers, offers training and advancement opportunities, and guarantees wage and benefit parity for workers affected by the transition;
guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States;
strengthening and protecting the right of all workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain free of coercion, intimidation, and harassment;
obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous people for all decisions that affect indigenous people and their traditional territories, honoring all treaties and agreements with indigenous people, and protecting and enforcing the sovereignty and land rights of indigenous people;
providing all people of the United States with—
(i) high-quality health care;
(ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing;
(iii) economic security; and
WTF? I thought this was supposed to be a plan focused on the environment and addressing climate change, not the entire Democratic party's wish list. :doh:

Re: The Global Warming Thread

Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:14 pm
by Kraken
Whenever a huge pot of money is put on the table, the people who are best at getting money get all the money. These provisions are intended to limit that and spread the wealth around. MA is trying to do something similar with its nascent cannabis industry. Without some rules favoring people who suffered disproportionately under prohibition, the business would all go to well-financed, well-connected players.

These things are important during an era when wealth concentration is one of our most serious problems. While the GND shouldn't be specifically designed to remedy inequality, it should endeavor not to make it worse.

Re: The Global Warming Thread

Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:59 pm
by Defiant
It should be focused on addressing climate change. Adding an unnecessary Democratic wishlist into it muddies it's goals and will limit it's support.

Re: The Global Warming Thread

Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 5:44 pm
by Kraken
I agree with you. But most of the points you quoted are about how it's going to be implemented, not what's going to be done, and that's a valid concern.

The last point is over the top though, I'll grant you that.

Re: The Global Warming Thread

Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2019 11:54 pm
by Kraken
Interactive map shows what your city's climate (might) resemble in 2080. Choose high (current) emissions or reduced emissions, and see whose current climate is an analog for your future climate -- e.g, Boston will feel like Rosedale MD.