US coasts sea level rise 10 to 12 inches by 2050

[S/V Illusion]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Denial. There's tons of data. Post some if you're so sure of your position. And the sophistry of your prior claims remain.

Nonsense. My “claims” consist solely of pointing out there is no data quantifying the contribution anthropogenic climate change impact has on the environment or overall climate.

It’s ironic that you suggest I post data when you have nothing in answer to my simple question. I guess that’s why you resort to childish ad hominem tantrums. That’s what invariably happens when debating climate change with liberal arts majors.

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by newhaul

The tamd41's get about 3 gph each and he runs one engine or the other alternating as running both only gains him a half knot speed . We burn about 300 gallons a year with that vessel.
The other 6 months Snow skiing actually. As of right now he is in Tahoe on the fresh powder .
I am here doing the engine maintenance on his diesel engines. Tomorrow

Ok, considering diesel produces 22.46 pounds per gallon, and 5.46 pounds per gallon (to refine) this 300 gallons is more than 4 tons a year and more than world average total consumption per person that normally includes more essential things like food. These fuel emissions could be a small fraction if they used sails instead.

This is not including the emissions for drilling and extraction or transporting the crude oil to the refinery. Not including the emissions to produce the refinery or the engine, to support the lifestyles of the workers who facilitate all of this, or the oil in the engine and so many others, the true cost is a lot higher, most certainly several times over.

Considering how they likely travel from tahoe, how they live there, and and so forth, it is clear they are living in excess: many times over more than a typical human on this planet.

So just another case of rich people being entitled and selfishly consuming way more than they need to, and way more than most people do. You help prove my point.

I am looking for very wealthy people (billions in assets) who cause less than 3 ton total emissions per year as I am able to do this, it should be even easier if you have tons of money, but none of them do.. why? Because the rich are genuinely selfish and bad people.

[Ryban]

People only accept science when it either directly benefits them, they can wage more effective wars from it, or they can profit from it. Literally almost every modern convenience you enjoy, including this privilege to "debate" the impacts of climate change, is a product of the scientific process.

But anything that goes against their grain, threatens their ideology, or aligns with the propaganda fed to them by politicians, and it suddenly just becomes a questionable "theory".

Politicians and lobbyist have taken advantage of this to make it seem like their is doubt or uncertainty in the data, and organize voters to keep the status quo, and their pockets lined with oil money. It started with climate change isn't real, then climate change is real, but won't be that bad, and now, climate change is real, it might be bad, but it's too late anyway.

I honestly just think in this thread, there are just a lot of older retired folk using unreliable anecdotes in place of peer-review scientific studies and at best, have been mislead by the media into thinking there's legitimate uncertainty (there is not) on the impacts of anthropogenic CO2, and at worst, know climate change is real, but just don't care because it's a problem for the next generation to solve, and they want to live out the remainder of their lives in blissful ignorance.

[Ryban]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

Nonsense. My “claims” consist solely of pointing out there is no data quantifying the contribution anthropogenic climate change impact has on the environment or overall climate.
.

I can also say "there is no data supporting the sky is blue" if I choose to keep my head up my ass.

Here's one, of many thousands for you:
https://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1704

[Bycrick]

No peer-reviewed study is going to hold much weight against a doubled heating bill. If you want to change the world, "organize the voters."

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

Nonsense. My “claims” consist solely of pointing out there is no data quantifying the contribution anthropogenic climate change impact has on the environment or overall climate.

There is " data quantifying the contribution anthropogenic climate change impact has on the environment or overall climate."

Here is that explanation of said data

A new analysis of 40 years’ worth of satellite data has shown we are as close to certain as we can be that global climate change is actively being caused by humans. No doubt some of you will read this and say, almost certain eh? Yes. The “gold standard” level of certainty in scientific evidence has officially been reached.

This “gold standard” is not thrown around lightly. It means evidence has reached a "five sigma" level of certainty – something particle physicists use to determine confidence in their findings, for example, the discovery of the Higgs boson in 2012. Here it means there is a 1-in-a-million chance that ongoing climate change is being caused by anything other than humans, or that we’re 99.99 percent sure it’s us.

https://www.iflscience.com/environme...sed-by-humans/

Here is the study of said data.

https://www.osti.gov/pages/servlets/purl/1647443

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by S/V Illusion

My “claims” consist solely of pointing out there is no data quantifying the contribution anthropogenic climate change impact has on the environment or overall climate.

Anthropogenic CO2 correlated to temperature.

The historic temperature pattern we observe has abrupt dips that match the emissions of known explosive volcanic eruptions; the particulates from such events reflect sunlight and cool the Earth’s surface for a few years. There are small rapid variations attributable to El Nino and other ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream. The gradual but systematic rise of 1.5 degrees C is best explained by the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice.

Results – Summary Charts – Berkeley Earth

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

Ok, considering diesel produces 22.46 pounds per gallon, and 5.46 pounds per gallon (to refine) this 300 gallons is more than 4 tons a year and more than world average total consumption per person that normally includes more essential things like food. These fuel emissions could be a small fraction if they used sails instead.

This is not including the emissions for drilling and extraction or transporting the crude oil to the refinery. Not including the emissions to produce the refinery or the engine, to support the lifestyles of the workers who facilitate all of this, or the oil in the engine and so many others, the true cost is a lot higher, most certainly several times over.

Considering how they likely travel from tahoe, how they live there, and and so forth, it is clear they are living in excess: many times over more than a typical human on this planet.

So just another case of rich people being entitled and selfishly consuming way more than they need to, and way more than most people do. You help prove my point.

I am looking for very wealthy people (billions in assets) who cause less than 3 ton total emissions per year as I am able to do this, it should be even easier if you have tons of money, but none of them do.. why? Because the rich are genuinely selfish and bad people.

I don't disagree most really flush people are not the kind of people I would want to associate with . They are usually wanting you and me to live like papers and produce 0 emissions so they can produce as much as they want to .

He is not living in excess he is living retired from a lifetime of work . He drives a Chevy avalanch with a v8 engine the 2011 model . Last with air ride.
Quite e onomical on the highways.

When in his boat he catches most of his food by " foraging"
I never said he doesn't produce but he is not a real major producer.

Hell I bet Al Gore produces that in a week on his private jet.

As to personal emissions per year I am well below 90% of the people on the planet . I think I burned 20 gallons of diesel and 20 pounds of propane last year .
I have no idea my contribution while on public transportation. As I don't drive myself.
Bike or walk most of the time .

[Ryban]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

No peer-reviewed study is going to hold much weight against a doubled heating bill. If you want to change the world, "organize the voters."

Sure, but we spent 4 decades ignoring the problem when we could have been slowly building out infrastructure to make the transition affordable, easier, and more equitable. Now we're backed into a corner of our own design.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Ryban

Sure, but we spent 4 decades ignoring the problem when we could have been slowly building out infrastructure to make the transition affordable, easier, and more equitable. Now we're backed into a corner of our own design.

What corner do you refer to we are doing just fine and in 20 years we will be wearing coats for longer each year than we do now .

[Montanan]

Hmmn, thinking about what the Swedish scientist Dr. Svante Arrhenius said during the 1890's:

“By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind.”

If Svante was around today, he might have been a guest speaker at one of Montana's conventions of the Society for Global Warming.

Looking out on snow covered mountains and a huge presently largely, ice-covered Flathead Lake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgSj_0iwbe8

I live about 50 miles south of Glacier National Park and have seen the continuing receding of the glaciers and the effect of such loss of cold water flow on the streams, river and lakes. I suppose the park will ultimately be renamed to be Glacierless National Park; every year there is less glaciers.

I have been blessed with the opportunity to have spent these Covid years advancing the commercialization of a transformative new renewable primary energy resource technology, the fundamentals of which were recently invented by scientists at a national laboratory of the U.S. Dept. of Energy. The technology realizes the ability to very efficiently harvest water vapor from the atmosphere, along with the vast amount of latent thermal energy within the water vapor molecules so as to provide for a new clean energy method of realizing heating, cooling and drying methods. Our next progression of the technology is to couple the harvested latent thermal energy with an advanced thermally powered compression engine so as to derive mechanical power and thence to simply convert the mechanical power to electrical generation. Producing energy and pure water from the humidity in the atmosphere.

An intention is to dramatically enhance the efficiency of air conditioning [comfort cooling of a warming world] and to provide for the decarbonization of the building sector by largely displacing combustion as a heating source for warming spaces and domestic hot water service.

Water in vapor phase is the primary greenhouse effect gas in the atmosphere and the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is projected to grow considerably because warm air holds much more humidity than colder air. CO2 and methane are the greenhouse effect gases that get most of the attention and discussion. Being able to harvest a lot of mass of water vapor with very little electrical energy input provides for availing water in vapor phase to join water in liquid phase [falling and flowing - a.k.a. hydropower] as a primary renewable energy resource. A renewable primary energy resource comparable to solar, wind, geothermal and biomass.

When natural gas [methane CH4] is combusted, one molecule of carbon dioxide [CO2] is derived, and two molecules of water vapor [H20, dihydrogen oxide]. About 10% of the heat of combustion of O2 is latent thermal energy within the produced water vapor molecules. Harvesting the water vapor from the atmosphere, be that water vapor originated by solar gain / evaporation, or by anthropological emissions provides for extraction of a greenhouse effect gas. Subsequent to harvesting the water vapor is the conversion of the entrained latent thermal energy into a variety of beneficial uses.

The rapid global deployment of the water vapor harvesting technology and its numerous applications has become our stewardship for a number of undertakings, e.g., as to aiding in mitigating climate change and energy poverty, deriving pure water where water is a scarce resource, facilitating and accelerating the electrification of both the transportation and of the building sectors, etc.

It is not rocket science, it is basic science. Elegant technological simplicity.

[Ryban]

Originally Posted by newhaul

What corner do you refer to we are doing just fine and in 20 years we will be wearing coats for longer each year than we do now .

We're doing just fine? The West is experiencing the worst drought in 1200 years. There is no longer a wildfire "season: in California, Oregon, and Washington, it is now just year-round. Farmers in California are fighting for the very limited water resources to go around, and mind you, 13% of the all US agriculture comes from California.

You have to have blinders on to legitimately believe that everything is fine.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by seandepagnier

Voting is just in place to so people feel like they have some power when in fact they have none: zero. If you vote or not makes no difference at all. It is more significant what actions you personally choose which are relatively small considering you are one of billions.

Unless you have millions of dollars (or billions preferred) your "vote" is of absolutely zero consequence.
Why don't you pay a lobbyist and get them to change a vote that actually counts for something? Just need a few million or sometimes $50k is enough to buy the vote of the cheaper representatives.

Seandepagenier:

Oh come now, surely you know the difference between a good politician and a bad politician?


. . .


A good politician stays bought.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Ryban

We're doing just fine? The West is experiencing the worst drought in 1200 years. There is no longer a wildfire "season: in California, Oregon, and Washington, it is now just year-round. Farmers in California are fighting for the very limited water resources to go around, and mind you, 13% of the all US agriculture comes from California.

You have to have blinders on to legitimately believe that everything is fine.

Really? Not so fast amino. We are not all in severe drough . Perhaps you should look at the facts not just Nancy's nephews opinion .

https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Curre...onitor.aspx?WA

https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Curre...onitor.aspx?OR

https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/Curre...onitor.aspx?CA

Do remember you actually live in an area that is normally a semi arid desert region if not for man pumping water into you.

Most of it is going back to natural state .

Looks like you are about normal as to snow pack for the year as well.

https://ktla.com/news/california/map...r-dry-january/

Washington is also looking good snow wise.
https://wcc.sc.egov.usda.gov/reports...+Update+Report



https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal...5.237&zoom=5.5


Oregon is well above normal


https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/or/snow/

So looks like no 1200 year drought .

BTW I am cruising my home grounds " puget sound. " and no not Seattle but just west .

[donradcliffe]

Originally Posted by Montanan

I live about 50 miles south of Glacier National Park and have seen the continuing receding of the glaciers and the effect of such loss of cold water flow on the streams, river and lakes. I suppose the park will ultimately be renamed to be Glacierless National Park

You lost me in the first sentence. I would say receding glaciers CREATE more cold water flow as they recede.