The hurricane prediction is for the strongest in 70 years

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by peter57

I have Known about the Milancovitch cycles for a long time and one of my daughters is attending a uni course in astronomy. Was it the release of CO2 from this or warming ocean currents? Or both?

During the warming phase of a Milankovitch cycle the atmosphere and ocean are warmed releasing CO2. That then creates positive feedback with both CO2 and H2O, both GHGs, increasing temperatures and releasing more CO2 increasing temperatures allowing the air to hold more moisture and the positive feedback continues until the Milankovitch cycle goes into a cooling phase and the CO2 and H2O max out, and the CO2 starts to get absorbed by the oceans again.

We no longer need the Milankovitch cycle to trigger the CO2 release. We do it that all by ourselves. And we overwhelm the natural cycles.

Originally Posted by peter57

Back to my argument. What can we do about it?

We can stop dumping sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere. Oil and gas are non-renewable resources, we have to get off them at some point. The are a variety of alternative renewable energy sources, and the petroleum can be used a s materials feed stock and lubricants.

[rpmbnsf]

Originally Posted by jackdale

We can stop dumping sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere. Oil and gas are non-renewable resources, we have to get off them at some point. The are a variety of alternative renewable energy sources, and the petroleum can be used a s materials feed stock and lubricants.

That just it, "at some point" . The timing for that is a loooong way down the road. We simply do not have the technology to realistically substitute what we currently use. Sure, we have a few over priced under performing cars. Wind generation? Not practical in most places. Solar? Not efficient (best we have is low%20 range?) And to expensive. And battery technology really sucks. Like I said, we have along way to go.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for being good stewards of the planet. But when I see crap being pulled like taxing for CO2. That smacks of a very different agenda.

We will all be long gone before we see the end of fossil fuels use in our day to day living. And we have enough to last us many many lifetimes.

Now, I need to lay down. I have a fever and my polar icecap is melting.

[Olddan1943]

What I do not like is carbon banking and trading.
I know of a monastery in GA that sold its carbon rights to a company in Calif.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by rpmbnsf

That just it, "at some point" . The timing for that is a loooong way down the road. We simply do not have the technology to realistically substitute what we currently use. Sure, we have a few over priced under performing cars. Wind generation? Not practical in most places. Solar? Not efficient (best we have is low%20 range?) And to expensive. And battery technology really sucks. Like I said, we have along way to go.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for being good stewards of the planet. But when I see crap being pulled like taxing for CO2. That smacks of a very different agenda.

We will all be long gone before we see the end of fossil fuels use in our day to day living. And we have enough to last us many many lifetimes.

Now, I need to lay down. I have a fever and my polar icecap is melting.

Nuclear? It is the safest.

Taxing emissions was advocated by conservative economists such Milton Friedman.

https://youtu.be/V8d42BMRNQ0

Watch the first 2 minutes.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Olddan1943

What I do not like is carbon banking and trading.
I know of a monastery in GA that sold its carbon rights to a company in Calif.

Agreed.

[Scotty Kiwi]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Norway is 100% renewable, with hydro representing the vast majority of that.

https://www.ssb.no/en/elektrisitet

NZ was 81% renewable in electricity in 2015, aiming to get to 90% by 2025.
Mainly Hydro, with wind making the increase.

[Scotty Kiwi]

Originally Posted by conachair

if science worked like that..... it wouldn't work, nothing you see around you right now would exist.

Yes .... it's not science - it's guesswork.

[Olddan1943]

Originally Posted by Scotty Kiwi

Yes .... it's not science - it's guesswork.

If you can repeat it 3 times with the same results, it is 'science'

[Cadence]

Some of it is empirical reasoning. I saw a black rock therefore all rocks are black. It is observation without any guidelines to include all possibilities. That is junk science.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Olddan1943

If you can repeat it 3 times with the same results, it is 'science'

but if you repeat it 100 times and one time it fails out of the 100 then it should be thrown out and you start over...

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Olddan1943

If you can repeat it 3 times with the same results, it is 'science'

kind of hard to test their theory when they refuse to provide the raw data. Or even how they got the data sets.

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by Scotty Kiwi

NZ was 81% renewable in electricity in 2015, aiming to get to 90% by 2025.
Mainly Hydro, with wind making the increase.

Hydro power has a huge environmental cost, it should not be considered clean energy or in the same category as wind and solar power.

New Zealand is mostly deforested, and the south island is spoilied because of unnecessary dairy farms there. They decided to trade their environment for money to keep their income similar to the US, because they just don't have the same kind of technical skills or innovation.

They dump more toxic poison such as 1800, cyanide, and many more in wild areas much more than anywhere else! They even use CCA wood that was banned 15 years ago in the USA because it is toxic. The soil is eroding as fast as anywhere due to unsustainable agriculture.
I could go on and on for pages about new zealand.

new zealand being destroyed just as fast as anywhere is pathetic considering how few people live there. I guess I shouldn't expect any intelligence from the people there after all, they built their capitol in the windiest possible place on an earthquake fault!


How exactly do they predict 2018 will be the biggest storm season in 70 years?

[SV THIRD DAY]

Question of the Day:
How many of the Paris Accord Countries are on track with their Emission Targets?

Answer: Nada....because it's not about CO2....it's about the money and that just kills the true believers.

[Olddan1943]

Originally Posted by newhaul

but if you repeat it 100 times and one time it fails out of the 100 then it should be thrown out and you start over...

Ah but it is still a scientific method therefore science. Next I would investigate the method used to see if there was a change in the execution. Not all scientific experiments result in a positive conclusion.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Since the thread appears to have been taken over by the usual suspects, let's talk about this 'massive giveaway'.

The development and establishment of the internet was primarily funded (in the US at any rate) by the Defense Department. The Defense Department is funded by the US taxpayer, so what was actually happening was that the individuals who use it were only getting something that they had already paid for.

The 'service providers' are making a profit from something they had no hand in the making of (the internet, not the means of distributing it), financially, physically or intellectually. In previous times, before the neo-liberal policies of Reagan/Thatcher wreaked their havoc on the western (and by extension, rest of the) world, this would have been called stealing, and have been dealt with at the ballot box.

Originally Posted by DotDun

Wow, this is so wrong is so many ways.....just Wow!

Since the whole thread has devolved into a farrago of, apparently, fear-induced regurgitations from the same old tired internet blogs, cherry-picked supposed evidence, misunderstanding and outright prevarication, let me ask you (and by extension, all the other crusty old white guys who seem to be 'feeling the threat') instead of just proclaiming something 'is wrong in so may ways', tell us why it's wrong.

As it stands, my statement is absolutely correct, and a matter of record.

"The development and establishment of the internet was primarily funded (in the US at any rate) by the Defense Department. The Defense Department is funded by the US taxpayer, so what was actually happening was that the individuals who use it were only getting something that they had already paid for."

The 'service providers' originally used existing telephone lines for internet service, and expanded service as demand called for it, and were subsidized, and continue to be subsidized, by the federal government (i.e. the taxpayer).

For example, first result for a google search for 'AT&T federal subsidies'.

https://arstechnica.com/information-...nment-funding/

So, in effect, any users of telephony in the US are paying private US companies for goods and services that they have, at least in part, already paid for.

Not to mention things like most if not all of the original technology behind the phones themselves...if the soporified-by-their-leftist-education public ever actually thought about this multiple taxation, I wonder how long it would take for a little 'Jeffersonian rebellion'. Certainly seems a little overdue...