Changes in Atlantic currents

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

The sad thing is that most of these fossil-fuel leech supporters probably don't even own stock in the leeches they support... so they're getting screwed in triplicate, and don't even realize it.

I hold stocks in coal, natural gas, lithium and uranium. Natural gas is the performer of the moment then daylight then lithium.

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

There is a significant chance that unchecked warming will have serious economic and human impacts - eg famines, flooding, conflict over dwindling resources, etc. There will be many deaths, and much hardship.

And for many other species and ecological regions, yes, extinction. Take just insects: they are fundamental to every land ecology, yet insect species loss is perhaps 10x that of other animals. Insects are at the base of the food chain, so that loss will be reflected upwards. One big example - the decline of bee numbers means that in many agricultural areas, we have to truck cultured bees around to pollenate crops, because the natural populations are no longer sufficient.

The good news? Most of us on CF will be dead before the worst effects bite hard.

Of course the extinction of any species has a ripple effect such the one regarding bees. But what does that have to do with a couple degrees of climate change since that’s not why the bees died? Fortunately, bees and other critters are smart enough to move a bit north or south to keep themselves in the temperature range they prefer. What makes you think humans can’t similarly adapt?

You keep trying to defend the indefensible use of private jets to get to a meeting about climate change and no matter how you phrase it, doing so just hurts your credibility almost as much as those who chose to use a private jet when they could have shared a jet with 200 or 300 others, like the rest of us do when we want to travel great distances in a short time. They don’t have to ride a bicycle or paddle a boat to get there but you could salvage what little credibility you have left if you’d stop defending their use of THE MOST CO2 producing method of transportation there is to get to this conference. I understand Biden has to use AF1 for security reasons but many of the other 399 private jets used to transport people to Glasgow don’t have a similar excuse. So do yourself a favor and admit that flying private jets to formulate rules that will restrict things like using private jets is hypocritical and doesn’t help the credibility of those who claim to be concerned about climate change.,

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

... Fortunately, bees and other critters are smart enough to move a bit north or south to keep themselves in the temperature range they prefer. What makes you think humans can’t similarly adapt? ...

Cruisers, RV’ers, & Romani might be able to so adapt, but for the vast majority of humanity, that would be practically impossible.

Each year, tens of millions of people across the globe are driven from their homes by floods, storms, droughts, and other weather-related disasters. And as the adverse effects of global climate change induce more extreme weather, growing food insecurity, and rising sea levels; that number is expected to rise.
Tragically, it is the world’s poorest and most vulnerable communities that are hardest hit.
Unfortunately, the people that lose their homes, in these disasters, are not considered “refugees”, because the 1951 Refugee Convention only protects those fleeing war and persecution.


“How to Know Where and When to Migrate because of Global Warming and Climate Change Part 1: The Overview “
“... In these "how-to" pages, you will find many questions and current global warming prediction information that will help you decide if you should consider climate change migration or relocation, and if so, when and where. These pages will also lay out a sequence of crucial actions steps you can begin immediately...
... Knowing when to migrate because of global warming and the other 11 escalating global crises is as important as knowing where to migrate! ...”
➥ https://www.joboneforhumanity.org/mi...CAAEgKruvD_BwE




“Climate Change & Migration - Latest Research”
➥ https://www.migrationpolicy.org/topi...iAAEgK6KPD_BwE

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Of course the extinction of any species has a ripple effect such the one regarding bees. But what does that have to do with a couple degrees of climate change since that’s not why the bees died? Fortunately, bees and other critters are smart enough to move a bit north or south to keep themselves in the temperature range they prefer. What makes you think humans can’t similarly adapt?

If your neighbour plays loud death-metal 24/7, I suppose you'd just get earplugs. Or learn to like it. Adapt!

There's a whole lot more going on than the global thermostat getting nudged a few degrees. Do some reading.

You keep trying to defend the indefensible use of private jets to get to a meeting about climate change and no matter how you phrase it, doing so just hurts your credibility almost as much as those who chose to use a private jet when they could have shared a jet with 200 or 300 others, like the rest of us do when we want to travel great distances in a short time. They don’t have to ride a bicycle or paddle a boat to get there but you could salvage what little credibility you have left if you’d stop defending their use of THE MOST CO2 producing method of transportation there is to get to this conference. I understand Biden has to use AF1 for security reasons but many of the other 399 private jets used to transport people to Glasgow don’t have a similar excuse. So do yourself a favor and admit that flying private jets to formulate rules that will restrict things like using private jets is hypocritical and doesn’t help the credibility of those who claim to be concerned about climate change.

This sort of meeting has to be face-to-face. The wealthy, the VIPs, the leaders of the world, and their favourite actors, musicians and sports celebs, all fly around a lot. Often on private planes. Get over it. Making this an issue is juvenile, and a pretty clear indication that your understanding is superficial at best. Worry about your own credibility.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Aha, the Keating solution: if you cannot win the argument with rationality and logic, redefine the lexicon.

Those of us who struggle day to day afloat keeping the lights on and the beer cold using wind and solar and battery storage know from long experience that you cannot run a modern civilization on wind and solar only and that the proponents of this are just the modern proponents of another big lie which will require the support of a massive redefinition of the lexicon.

NOBODY is telling you that the solution is to run on on wind and solar only.

Never mind "lexicon"; you're just making stuff up.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Ahh. Revisionist history strikes again!

The Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894

Yes, this lightweight one-pager totally invalidates Gord's link.

And what urgency..."The terrible situation was debated in 1898".

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Yes, this lightweight one-pager totally invalidates Gord's link.

And what urgency..."The terrible situation was debated in 1898".

I can see the revisionist history of 2121 when the end of the world depends on culling the effects of 10G electromagnetic radiation. It'll almost write itself:

"In the annals of cell phone history persists a tale of how smart phones in the early 21st century helped everyone conquer their communication problems. It’s a tidy story, so to speak, about 3G, 4G and 5G and technological innovation. As typically told, it’s a lesson we can learn from today, now that smart phones are their own environmental disaster, and one that technology can no doubt solve. The story makes perfect sense to modern ears and noses: After all, Americans love their cell phones! And who’d want to walk around with a Nokia Potato, with it's 30 minute talk time, verbally ordering Ubers and Menulog?
There’s just one problem with the story.
It’s wrong. ...”

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

I can see the revisionist history of 2121 when the end of the world depends on culling the effects of 10G electromagnetic radiation. It'll almost write itself:

You're just confused about which horsepoop article is most accurate.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

You're just confused about which horsepoop article is most accurate.

You are aware that feed supply, stabling and disposal of carcasses was just as big, if not a bigger, issue during the age of horse powered transport? Right?

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

NOBODY is telling you that the solution is to run on on wind and solar only.

Never mind "lexicon"; you're just making stuff up.

Keating did not claim he was doing it but a journalist belled the cat on him.

And I do live on a boat and have done so since 2001.

If you want to see what it takes to run even a small community with little productive capability take a look at the Hydro Tasmania site and download the King Island app.

It's 2300 hours where I am and the breakdown is:

Wind off

Solar off

Battery Off

Diesel 1,270 kW (100%)

Flywheel -119 kW

Customer solar 0 kW

So the diesel generator is providing 100% of the power required and so called renewables 0%. This system provides power for 1,300 people on King Island in Bass Strait.

[capn_billl]

A megawatt solar array that costs $10's of millions, and only produces usable power only a few hours a day, in no way compares to a 40 gigawatt nuclear plant that produces steady power 24 hours a day 365 days a year.

We would have to cover more than half the planet in solar panels to meet out energy needs at a cost of hundreds of trillions.

This is kindergarten level math.

1000 watts per sq meter, that is how much sunlight reaches the earth at the equator at noon.

Current cells are 20% efficient, even at 100% powering the globe from solar is laughable.

After spending as much on "renewables" as the combined total of ALL forms. If power since the beginning of the industrial age, we STILL get 95% of our power from coal, and oil.

[RaymondR]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

NOBODY is telling you that the solution is to run on on wind and solar only.

Never mind "lexicon"; you're just making stuff up.

Down here in the great south land one Twiggy Forrest is attracting a great deal of ink and paper consumption by advocating the abandoning of diesel fuel "subsidies".

As previously explained these are not actually "subsidies" they are the rebates of fuel taxes paid by road users in Australia for the purpose of building and maintaining roads.

The rationale for the rebate is that non road use of fuel should not attract the tax. If I chose to I could claim the rebate on the fuel I use in my boat because it's non road use.

In this instance of the "redefinition of the lexicon" the "rebate" has been redefined as a "subsidy" in order to justify gifting taxpayer funds to the renewables industry in an attempt to make it economically competitive with fossil fuel derived energy.

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by capn_billl

We would have to cover more than half the planet in solar panels to meet out energy needs at a cost of hundreds of trillions.

This is kindergarten level math.

Current improvements in battery technology are changing the math.

Nuclear might be fine except we still have no good place yet to put the nuclear waste. It is not an insignificant problem.

[AndyEss]

Hey, this is cool this thread is going on. It was kinda rough in the anchorage tonight. Nothing like the hurricanes a couple of months back, but winter is a com’in

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Down here in the great south land one Twiggy Forrest is attracting a great deal of ink and paper consumption by advocating the abandoning of diesel fuel "subsidies".

As previously explained these are not actually "subsidies" they are the rebates of fuel taxes paid by road users in Australia for the purpose of building and maintaining roads.
...
In this instance of the "redefinition of the lexicon" the "rebate" has been redefined as a "subsidy" in order to justify gifting taxpayer funds to the renewables industry in an attempt to make it economically competitive with fossil fuel derived energy.

You haven't or won't read the numerous links already posted about the extent to which fossil fuel is subsidized pretty much the world over, so I won't inflict any. It is however worth mentioning the most recent example - the US just releasing some of their strategic reserve because God forbid that Americans, the champions of free enterprise, would have to pay market prices, let alone as much as a European, for their gas (petrol).