A Catastrophic New Climate Report

[DKW 86 7,431]

https://theconversation.com/plastic-in-the-oceans-is-not-the-fault-of-the-global-south-110247

Climate Change may be just too ethereal for some to grab onto. Lets talk about real, easy to see issues. Plastic in the oceans, its killing wildlife and poisoning the world in many ways. We need Green Answers as the population increases. We are about to sign on to solar panels in the bear future. Electric Cars are coming, because they are better, cleaner,  and faster then gas cars. Nuclear needs to be studied and developed even more. Geothermal should be engaged as well. 

Recycling is failing because we arent buying products that use recycled material. WE CAN & SHOULD DO BETTER. 

Green is the Future.

Edited August 11, 2021 by DKW 86

[auburn41 492]

5 hours ago, abw0004 said:

Martha's Vineyard is 311 feet above sea level (at its highest point).  Comparing that to Miami that is only 4 feet above sea level it is a much better investment.  Because of this, Miami's beachfront properties have been dropping in value since 2013.

Here is a pic of BHO's house.  It is right on the coast and is not 311 feet above sea level!

Edited August 11, 2021 by auburn41

[johnnyAU 3,634]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

And exactly what are your qualifications to suggest the greenhouse effect (CO2 and other gases introduced by man) isn't the problem?  Of course it's the problem. 

What are yours slick?

[johnnyAU 3,634]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Accordingly, I decided not to have children

LOL, that's best for everyone. Some folks shouldn't be parents, and some shouldn't procreate at all. Thank you for making the right decision on both counts.

[PUB78 1,359]

22 hours ago, homersapien said:

That really doesn't sound like much of a plan to me.

I think I will become a  domesday prepper.

[homersapien 11,393]

On 8/11/2021 at 5:06 PM, johnnyAU said:

What are yours slick?

Well, Auburn University claims I am a scientist ('73 BS, '75 MS)

Otherwise, I understand the science and keep up with it.  Not to mention the effects of AGW are becoming more apparent and will directly affect everyone. 

So, while I likely too old to experience the worst over the next few decades, I will be around long enough to witness ignorant doubters - like yourself - become totally irrelevant, if you aren't already. 

 

[homersapien 11,393]

On 8/11/2021 at 5:13 PM, johnnyAU said:

LOL, that's best for everyone. Some folks shouldn't be parents, and some shouldn't procreate at all. Thank you for making the right decision on both counts.

Thank you.  Many people don't make the right decision, or it happens by accident.

(Make sure your children know your position on AGW. )

Edited August 12, 2021 by homersapien

[johnnyAU 3,634]

13 hours ago, homersapien said:

Well, Auburn University claims I am a scientist ('73 BS, '75 MS)

Otherwise, I understand the science and keep up with it.  Not to mention the effects of AGW are becoming more apparent and will directly affect everyone. 

So, while I likely too old to experience the worst over the next few decades, I will be around long enough to witness ignorant doubters - like yourself - become totally irrelevant, if you aren't already. 

 

Cool, and I'm a licensed professional engineer, and have 25+ years in the field.  I also keep up with the topic, and understand the science...as well as the difference between what we claim to know versus what we actually don't know.  Don't worry, long after your gone there will be hapless ideologues like yourself who will do nothing more than push an unverifiable narrative because it suits their politics. There have always been doom and gloomers and end of the world cultists. You are a dime a dozen man. Get over yourself.

[johnnyAU 3,634]

13 hours ago, homersapien said:

Thank you.  Many people don't make the right decision, or it happens by accident.

(Make sure your children know your position on AGW. )

Of course I have, and have given them the tools to question, investigate and think for themselves rather than parrot talking points. It's up to them from here. 

[homersapien 11,393]

25 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

Cool, and I'm a licensed professional engineer, and have 25+ years in the field.  I also keep up with the topic, and understand the science...as well as the difference between what we claim to know versus what we actually don't know.  Don't worry, long after your gone there will be hapless ideologues like yourself who will do nothing more than push an unverifiable narrative because it suits their politics. There have always been doom and gloomers and end of the world cultists. You are a dime a dozen man. Get over yourself.

I don't think you do.

Engineer, huh?  I could have guessed.

Edited August 13, 2021 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,393]

1 hour ago, johnnyAU said:

Of course I have, and have given them the tools to question, investigate and think for themselves rather than parrot talking points. It's up to them from here. 

Let's hope they do a better job than you have.

Here's a good site for them to start:  https://skepticalscience.com/

Edited August 13, 2021 by homersapien

[Leftfield 2,617]

20 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Engineer, huh?  I could have guessed.

Hey, man....I'M an engineer!

😝

[homersapien 11,393]

20 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Hey, man....I'M an engineer!

😝

Well, let's just say I worked routinely with (Chemical) engineers with mixed experience, from bad to very good. (My last boss was a ChemE and he was great!)

But some can be very stubborn when they are wrong. 

For example, I once had one argue with me that most of the braking force on a car was on the rear wheels instead of the front.  (This was when a lot of cars had front discs and rear drum brakes.)  I cited that as proof the front bore most of the braking force and he argued that was because the drums were superior to discs in braking. 

He just dug in and absolutely refused to concede he was wrong.

Edited August 13, 2021 by homersapien

[Leftfield 2,617]

8 minutes ago, homersapien said:

For example, I once had one argue with me that most of the braking force on a car was on the rear wheels instead of the front.  (This was when a lot of cars had front discs and rear drum brakes.)  I cited that as proof the front bore most of the braking force and he argued that was because the drums were superior to discs in braking. 

He just dug in and absolutely refused to concede he was wrong.

Hope I never have to use anything that guy designed.

 

[DKW 86 7,431]

[johnnyAU 3,634]

One funny thing about engineers...we have to actually apply fundamentals. Unlike theorists, we are held accountable when things don't work, and/or cause harm. Rigorous testing and verification are important. Claims, opinions and beliefs just aren't good enough.  

[Leftfield 2,617]

35 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

 Unlike theorists, we are held accountable when things don't work, and/or cause harm. Rigorous testing and verification are important. Claims, opinions and beliefs just aren't good enough.  

But everyone is being held accountable now, even if it's too early for many to be able to recognize it (which is why we have scientists). The evidence is there, you're just refusing to accept the data. Is it more of a sin to come up with a theory that may or may not prove out, or to claim to understand the science and yet still dismiss it when it does prove out?

Is there nothing in the alarms that climate scientists are sounding that concerns you? Elevated temperatures? Ice melt-off and sea level rise? Ocean acidification, pollution, and current disruption? Coral bleaching and loss of habitat? You sincerely don't believe any of this is a problem?

[johnnyAU 3,634]

7 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

The evidence is there, you're just refusing to accept the data.

BS. The "evidence" is not verifiable, and neither are the ridiculously overheated computer models. Is it more of a sin to spend (or force the expenditure) of trillions of $$$ to effectively accomplish nothing with the climate while potentially crippling economies, driving up energy prices and limiting energy availability, especially in poor areas? How many folks will die because they cannot afford to heat or cool their homes, or simply don't have access? 

You think it is environmentally friendly to mine the non-recyclable materials needed for unreliable solar panels and wind turbines? What will be done with them at the end of their useful lives? How will new solar panels and wind turbines be manufactured, or replaced in the field without the use of fossil fuels? Do you honestly think dotting the landscape and oceans with solar panels and turbines will provide the energy density to power all infrastructure, hospitals, businesses, homes, as well as a potentially overwhelming influx of electric vehicles that require charging? Will this new magic energy grid also be enough to mine and manufacture all the raw materials necessary to make the batteries, vehicles and all the consumer goods, including farming currently necessary...and keep up with population growth?  What would happen to commercial local and international air travel? 

 

[Leftfield 2,617]

11 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

BS. The "evidence" is not verifiable, and neither are the ridiculously overheated computer models. Is it more of a sin to spend (or force the expenditure) of trillions of $$$ to effectively accomplish nothing with the climate while potentially crippling economies, driving up energy prices and limiting energy availability, especially in poor areas? How many folks will die because they cannot afford to heat or cool their homes, or simply don't have access? 

You think it is environmentally friendly to mine the non-recyclable materials needed for unreliable solar panels and wind turbines? What will be done with them at the end of their useful lives? How will new solar panels and wind turbines be manufactured, or replaced in the field without the use of fossil fuels? Do you honestly think dotting the landscape and oceans with solar panels and turbines will provide the energy density to power all infrastructure, hospitals, businesses, homes, as well as a potentially overwhelming influx of electric vehicles that require charging? Will this new magic energy grid also be enough to mine and manufacture all the raw materials necessary to make the batteries, vehicles and all the consumer goods, including farming currently necessary...and keep up with population growth?  What would happen to commercial local and international air travel? 

 

I'm confused - you believe the current, available evidence is not verifying that the average worldwide temperatures continue to increase? If so, why would you believe that? Do you have your own evidence, or do you simply not believe the climate scientists that are saying this is happening? If it's the latter, what reason do you have to not accept their findings?

Your second paragraph makes some assumptions. One is that everyone is proposing to completely replace the power grid with wind and solar. I have seen not one person ever say that. Certainly those sources need to be expanded, but of course other sources would be needed. Another assumption is that solar panels are not environmentally friendly. While that was true historically (and it was a major failure to not address recycling it in the early years of solar), the materials used and recycling capacity are far better than they were. You also assume everything is focused on the production side, while there are plenty of industries focusing on the consumption side.

All your arguments are based on the premise that nothing is happening. If you're wrong and the science is correct, would you still propose to do nothing, and just resign ourselves to the fact our children will have to live in a world of survival of the fittest? If the science is correct, would it be a sin to spend trillions to save as many as possible, considering not doing so would mean that the economies and poor you mentioned would be completely gone?

 

[homersapien 11,393]

1 hour ago, johnnyAU said:

BS. The "evidence" is not verifiable, and neither are the ridiculously overheated computer models. Is it more of a sin to spend (or force the expenditure) of trillions of $$$ to effectively accomplish nothing with the climate while potentially crippling economies, driving up energy prices and limiting energy availability, especially in poor areas? How many folks will die because they cannot afford to heat or cool their homes, or simply don't have access? 

You think it is environmentally friendly to mine the non-recyclable materials needed for unreliable solar panels and wind turbines? What will be done with them at the end of their useful lives? How will new solar panels and wind turbines be manufactured, or replaced in the field without the use of fossil fuels? Do you honestly think dotting the landscape and oceans with solar panels and turbines will provide the energy density to power all infrastructure, hospitals, businesses, homes, as well as a potentially overwhelming influx of electric vehicles that require charging? Will this new magic energy grid also be enough to mine and manufacture all the raw materials necessary to make the batteries, vehicles and all the consumer goods, including farming currently necessary...and keep up with population growth?  What would happen to commercial local and international air travel? 

 

Yep.  An engineer.

 

[Leftfield 2,617]

15 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Yep.  An engineer.

 

What's a good analogy for two engineers arguing?

On second thought, I probably don't want to hear peoples' suggestions on that.

[homersapien 11,393]

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

What's a good analogy for two engineers arguing?

On second thought, I probably don't want to hear peoples' suggestions on that.

I don't know, but here's a good joke I found while looking:

An engineer, a statistician, and a physicist are out hunting. They spot a buck, and each take turn to try and bag it.

The physicist goes first. He pulls out his lab book and quickly calculates the trajectory of the bullet, assuming it is a perfect sphere in a vacuum. The bullet falls 20m short of the deer.

The engineer goes second. He pulls out his engineering pad and book of projectile assumptions. After a few minutes he’s ready. He takes aim and he fires. The bullet lands 20m passed the deer.

The statistician triumphantly leaps in the air shouting, “We got it!”

[homersapien 11,393]

Another:

Two engineering students were crossing campus when one asked the other, "Where did you get such a great bike?"

The second engineer replied, "Well, I was walking along yesterday minding my own business when a beautiful woman rode up on this bike. She threw the bike to the ground, took off all her clothes and said, "Take what you want."

"The second engineer nodded approvingly, "Good choice; the clothes probably wouldn't have fit."

[johnnyAU 3,634]

21 hours ago, Leftfield said:

I'm confused - you believe the current, available evidence is not verifying that the average worldwide temperatures continue to increase? If so, why would you believe that? Do you have your own evidence, or do you simply not believe the climate scientists that are saying this is happening? If it's the latter, what reason do you have to not accept their findings?

Your second paragraph makes some assumptions. One is that everyone is proposing to completely replace the power grid with wind and solar. I have seen not one person ever say that. Certainly those sources need to be expanded, but of course other sources would be needed. Another assumption is that solar panels are not environmentally friendly. While that was true historically (and it was a major failure to not address recycling it in the early years of solar), the materials used and recycling capacity are far better than they were. You also assume everything is focused on the production side, while there are plenty of industries focusing on the consumption side.

All your arguments are based on the premise that nothing is happening. If you're wrong and the science is correct, would you still propose to do nothing, and just resign ourselves to the fact our children will have to live in a world of survival of the fittest? If the science is correct, would it be a sin to spend trillions to save as many as possible, considering not doing so would mean that the economies and poor you mentioned would be completely gone?

 

I never said temps weren't increasing. There is no proof that CO2 is the primary driver of either global temperature or any other climatic events. 

There is quite a large push to both subsidize wind and solar, and push back against nuclear energy by mostly the same folks.  What are your alternatives if fossil fuels use is minimized and nuclear isn't a popular option?

None of my arguments are based on the premise that nothing is happening. That's a typical red herring argument from your lot. We are not however in a climate "crisis" of any sort. There is also no proof that halting emissions will have any significant impact on the climate, and there is no proof of any mythical "tipping point".  Spending trillions for nothing would be a "sin" for the unintended consequences and lasting impacts. 

[johnnyAU 3,634]