Page #14
Pages: #1... #9 #10 #11 #12 #13 #14 #15 #16 #17 #18 ...#29|
Started by #485312 [Ignore] 15,Dec,20 18:50
New Comment Rating: -1 Similar topics: 1.WHY DO PEOPLE COME ON SYD WITHOUT VALID PROFILES???? 2.MERRY CHRISTMAS. 3.What constitutes "World-Famous"? 4.Having Oral Sex Preformed on me by a Priest 5.YouTube can be educational too (let's share videos) Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
only registered users can see external links
The war is harming the environment. Bet ye didn't think about that did you? I didn't realize how much of a impact it was making myself until I read about it. But yet if we charge our electric cars during off peak hours and eat to foo all will be fine? Yea right.
--------------------------------------- added after 22 minutes
The average e-car has a range of 250+/- miles per charge. When I was working my round trip commute to work was about 11 miles. That's 55 miles/week. Then there's the trips to the stores. Add another 10 miles/week for that. The weekends had farther destinations like the going to the beach, dinning in Ft Lauderdale, etc. That put at least another 30 miles . Let's round that to 50 miles.
So, in one busy week, that amounts to a total of 115 miles. Now, suppose my
e-car is a 3 yr old and the batteries now hold 90% of charge. That would mean that one charge would go 225 miles. It seems to me I could charge once every two weeks. You know I would not do that. You know that when I got home and wasn't expecting to go out again that day, I would hook it up to shore power (charge). That is not much different to my gasoline car, except for the convinience of not having to go to a gas station or having money to buy gasoline.
Charging your electric car is cheaper than filling up a traditional vehicle with gasoline.
There are initial cost (besides the cost of the car) charger installation is around $2000, but, for in-town use? Not bad at all. It's cleaner and cheaper to operate.
"From her first moments in the spotlight, Greta has been open about her autism (she uses the term Asperger's syndrome), obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD), and selective mutism."
People with autism have a greater than normal capacity for processing information even from rapid presentations and are better able to detect information defined as "critical," according to a new study. The research may help explain the apparently higher than average prevalence in the IT industry of people with autism spectrum disorders.
only registered users can see external links
BUT still, if she was working for a conservative cause, you would be saying negative things about her would you not?
only registered users can see external links
Sheesh,there are some fucking nuts out there.
only registered users can see external links
If the world was flat, cats would have pushed us and everything else off the edge by now people.Get real!
This by far the worst link for accurate info but at least it proves I aint the only 1 that thinks the way I do.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
"On August 10, 1969, The New York Times quoted a 37-year-old scientist predicting a new ice age and that “everyone will disappear in a cloud of blue steam by 1989.”
only registered users can see external links
""Is she the chief economist or who is she? I'm confused," Mnuchin jokingly replied to a question about the Swedish teenager's call for America to immediately transition away from fossil fuels, according to Reuters.
"After she goes and studies economics in college, she can come back and explain that to us," he added."
She is just a kid,that did make 14 A's and several B's in school last year. So not dumb,just not old enough or has any cloat to be talking to world leaders about climate change when she does not understand the economic impact of what she is being used to push.
only registered users can see external links
And leo thinks I am crazy!
and for most of us that is questionable.
only registered users can see external links
He's right, it was a '500-year flood event', which means it has a 0.2 percent chance (or 1 in 500 chance) of occurring in a given year. But those FEMA Flood Zone Designations are from 1968, from pre-climate change statistics.
only registered users can see external links
This article is from 2017.
"It’s the city’s third “500-year” flood in the past three years."
only registered users can see external links
"When Staunton dealt with flash flooding in August 2020, it was classified as a 500-year flood but that also has happened multiple times such as 1985, 1996, 2002 and 2003. In fact, southeast Texas had 500-year floods for 5 straight years starting in 2015."
only registered users can see external links
"We just had five 1,000-year floods in less than a year. What's going on?"
only registered users can see external links
"Rash of 1,000-year floods snuck up on victims, forecasters"
only registered users can see external links
This was from august this year: "1000 year floods? Let’s get real"
only registered users can see external links
I was a bit surprised to find this:
"6 rare '1,000-year' rain events within a month? Climate change may force NOAA to update criteria"
only registered users can see external links
More '500-year' and '1000-year' flood and rain events than I can count.
It's not just Americans sucking at statistics, because this happens everywhere.
If the US doesn't massively increase it's flood protection, '100-year flood events' will occur several times a year, '500-year flood events' will happen on average every year and '1000-year flood events' will happen on average ever other year, until that statistic will be outdated too. Or you just update your FEMA Flood Zone Designations and act like nothing is happening. But then you might need to update them again in another decade, when the new 500-year flood designation happens every other year too.
BUT to me, and perhaps you may agree to a point, it is time to Reevaluate building in flood plains and area's suspectable to flooding during coastal storms.
This is not the first storm to ever hit florida, and won't be the last by a long shot.
It will cost Americans Billions to rebuild.
People will flock in from all over the country to clean up and rebuild right back in the same damn place. Only to sit back on pins and needles again in 3 years and watch it all wash away again. Time to break the cycle.
People hollar,"Oh we have insurance, it's not costing you a damn thing for us to have our house rebuilt ,shut the fuck up". WRONG DIPSHIT, Who else pays for insurance? The rest of America. So Americans as a whole bear the expense of snowbirds having their second homes in florida. And retirees living the dream,on the backs of the working class.
And the natives there,are stuck because their land was passed down to them,and is paid for and they can't afford to leave,
I know, that may come across as angry ranting, to a point it is, as normal Americans that can't afford to live in Florida or those of us that don't want to, feel like something needs to change.
We all watch the destruction and suffering over and over again and nothing seems to change ,no one seems to understand that something needs to be done different.
I have heard 1 definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over again expecting a different result.
I know Leo will respond to this in a negative way but even the Christian Bible tells us not to build our castles in the sand?
only registered users can see external links
And not prevention? To avoid the next horrible catastrophe and loss and suffering?
Well, if 'some' think that, I would like to hear their arguments.
Your measures are logical. Some areas might not be fit to build anymore.
However, the floods did not just happen in flood plains. This map shows floods from Cape Coral to Jacksonville.
only registered users can see external links
Do you think the whole of Florida needs to be abandoned?
According to NOAA, the top 5 costliest hurricanes in U.S. history are:
Hurricane Katrina ($186.3 billion), New Orleans, Louisiana
Hurricane Harvey ($148.8B), Texas
Hurricane Maria ($107.1B), Puerto Rico
Hurricane Sandy ($81.9B), New York
Hurricane Ida ($78.7B), Louisiana, New Jersey, New York and Mississippi.
(All of those storms, with the exception of Katrina, have struck the United States within the past 5 years.)
It looks like just abandoning Florida is not going to help.
I don't think we are talking about people building their castles in the sand. It looks like the whole of the east-coast is in danger and not just the few miles close-by too.
The east-coast is the most densely populated area of the US.
only registered users can see external links
It would be incredibly expensive to stop building there.
A while ago, I learned how expensive house insurance is in the US, or it was at least in Florida. If they cover hurricane damage, that clarifies the costs. Insurance isn't free money. You are correct about that. And at some point insurances will fail to cover it.
However, like I said before, preventing climate change is expensive, but it is an investment to prevent even more hurricane damage (fire damage, lost harvest damage, etc.) and whole areas becoming unsuitable for habitation, in the future.
The climate will be changing when and until the sun goes super nova.
If humanity stopped emitting CO2 now, it would take some time before the climate stabilized, but it would at least not become much worse. Returning to the climate before the year 2000 (which would be acceptable), takes carbon recapture. The use of fossil fuels has transferred 9.5 billion tons of carbon, that was captured in the ground over millions of years, into 35 billion tons of carbon dioxide that is now in the atmosphere.
Nature slowly captures CO2 from the air, but with nature as it is now, it's probably not even capable of recapturing that 9.5 billion tons of carbon again. However, it's now still at a survivable level. Emitting much more CO2 in the air will bring us closer to an unstoppable chain reaction, where all the carbon that is now captured in nature, burns off and where nature loses the capacity to turn CO2 into oxygen. That will be worse than going back to the lifestyle humans lived before the discovery of fire.
However, we are not at the point yet, where we are forced to do that. We can (hopefully) still save ourselves, by quickly reducing carbon emissions, through the energy transition.
Sure, stop Co2 emissions and maybe get back to +/- 400 ppm. For many reasons I agree with this (mainly for the effects on the oceans). But sun spot cycles will still occur and all sorts of other things affecting the climate which will still change and hurricanes and other shit will still happen. It's just a fact of life.
Another Fact: There is not an increase in either the number of severity of extreme weather events.
Humanity caused THIS climate change and humanity CAN prevent THIS cause to continue.
What happened in history were natural disasters, that killed 95% off all life several times. Humanity IS the 'natural' disaster now. However, because humanity is doing unnatural things to nature, it's is possible this time 100% off all life gets destroyed.
Get your facts straight.
The number of disasters has increased by a factor of five over the 50-year period.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
It's all linking to the studies that is supporting it.
I gave you links to some organizations who DO the studies.
'Politically correct'? It's scientifically correct!
If you deny that, you ARE a climate change denier.
Climate change has only been made 'political' by right-wing grifters
who take money from fossil fuel companies, to lie to the public,
so the CEO's can keep making massive profits for their owners
and shareholders, and keep pocketing trillions of dollars in subsidies,
without doing anything for it, besides stealing the natural resources from people.
Show your 'real text and studies' then.
The last climate report, 2021 IPPC6, forecasts the frequency of extreme climate events to 'decrease or be the same' (usual confidence factors, the models are not there yet).
Sadly there are lies on both sides and the climate change evangelists (equally with an eye on the $$$$$) are every bit as guilty. It really doesn't help.
Science is NOT whatever anyone chooses to believe. Applying your ideological beliefs to all issues is not the right way to do it.
I have checked the 'actual studies' many times, to see if headlines and media
are exaggerating and most of them are not.
I have searched all 2409 pages of the full 2021 IPCC AR6 WGII Report, that I found in the link below, but I find no text 'decrease or be the same' in there.
It might be your summary, but can you tell me on which page you found it?
only registered users can see external links
And why do you refer to the 2021 report? Here is the full 2022 IPCC AR6 WGII Report:
only registered users can see external links
It states many conclusions, but nothing is in line with what you are saying.
So explain to me how you come to your conclusion, from the following scientifically supported statements, with (very) high confidence:
B.1 (page 9): "Human-induced climate change, including more frequent and intense extreme events, has caused widespread adverse impacts and related losses and damages to nature and people, beyond natural climate variability. Some development and adaptation efforts have reduced vulnerability. Across sectors and regions the most vulnerable people and systems are ob-served to be disproportionately affected. The rise in weather and climate extremes has led to some irreversible impacts as natural and human systems are pushed beyond their ability to adapt. (high confidence)"
B.1.1: "Widespread, pervasive impacts to ecosystems, people, settlements, and infrastructure have resulted from observed increases in the frequency and intensity of climate and weather extremes, including hot extremes on land and in the ocean, heavy precipitation events, drought and fire weather (high confidence). Increasingly since AR5, these observed impacts have been attributed28 to human-induced climate change particularly through increased frequency and severity of extreme events."
Risks in the near term (2021–2040)
B.3: "Near-term warming and increased frequency, severity and duration of extreme events will place many terrestrial, freshwater, coastal and marine ecosystems at high or very high risks of biodiversity loss (medium to very high confidence, depending on ecosystem)."
B3.2 "In the near term, climate-associated risks to natural and human systems depend more strongly on changes in their vulnerability and exposure than on differences in climate hazards between emissions scenarios (high confidence)."
That means if you spend a lot of money on protecting your coasts, the damage can be minimized.
B3.3 "Some key risks contributing to the RFCs are projected to lead to widespread, pervasive, and potentially irreversible impacts at global warming levels of 1.5–2°C if exposure and vulnerability are high and adaptation is low (medium confidence)."
That means massive potentially irreversible impacts to people living on the coast, if we don't reach the climate goals and you do not spend a lot of money on protecting your coasts.
Mid to Long-term Risks (2041–2100)
B.4 "Beyond 2040 and depending on the level of global warming, climate change will lead to numerous risks to natural and human systems (high confidence)."
B.4.1 "Biodiversity loss and degradation, damages to and transformation of ecosystems are already key risks for every region due to past global warming and will continue to escalate with every increment of global warming (very high confidence)."
B.4.2 "At approximately 2°C global warming, snowmelt water availability for irrigation is projected to decline in some snowmelt dependent river basins by up to 20%, and global glacier mass loss of 18 ± 13% is projected to diminish water availability for agriculture, hydropower, and human settlements in the mid- to long-term, with these changes projected to double with 4°C global warming (medium confidence)."
B.4.4 "Climate change and related extreme events will significantly increase ill health and premature deaths from the near- to long-term (high confidence)."
B.4.5 "Climate change risks to cities, settlements and key infrastructure will rise rapidly in the mid- and long-term with further global warming, especially in places already exposed to high temperatures, along coastlines, or with high vulnerabilities (high confidence). Globally, population change in low-lying cities and settlements will lead to approximately a billion people projected to be at risk from coastal-specific climate hazards in the mid-term under all scenarios, including in Small Islands (high confidence)."
B.4.7 "In the mid- to long-term, displacement will increase with intensification of heavy precipitation and associated flooding, tropical cyclones, drought and, increasingly, sea level rise (high confidence)."
"Science is NOT whatever anyone chooses to believe. Applying your ideological beliefs to all issues is not the right way to do it."
Care to clarify how you came to this conclusion?
Are you working in a scientific environment perhaps?
It is dumping ALOT of nasty things into our air.Yet the world still turns.
I'm not worried about the earth, I'm worried about civilization going down the drain,
or the whole of humanity killing itself off.
And yes, if there is 'something' causing a system to go outside the statistical limits consistently, it is to be expected that "500" and "1000" yr events happen more often, when that cause is persisting.
can't be because travel will be so restricted due to charge times and so forth.
Sad that people are so willing to give up their freedom for a scam such as global cooling,I mean global warming,I mean climate change.
I think that term will stick for a while because it is not bound by 1 extreme or the other.
but if I were to get on a ebike and try to go to town, I would be run over like a bug.
Rural areas that type thing that is real slow is dangerous. have a bike ride in this area once a year and the roads are curvy ,hilly. Fun for a bike rider for some odd reason ,but dangerous if cars are on the road because you are driving along at the speed limit and suddenly there is Jimmy Tighty pants in your grill. So the sheriffs department gives them a motorcycle escort for their safety.
It ran ok,it had some miles on it but had cold air and a decent radio cd player. But when the engine decided to drop number 3 exhaust valve seat and let the valve hit the piston, all that fuel savings was shot out the window. well not for me I sold the car to a friend. Wish In a way I hadn't as I felt sorry for him. But he repaired it,at a cost of 700 dollars doing the work himself while teaching his teen age boys about mechanic work. Only for it to drop another valve seat ruining the engine completely the second time.
Turns out the little engines had this defect. and were recalled but never really fixed because aluminum shrinks and swells at a different rate than the steel valve seat.
All total I drove the car for 1.5 years at a total cost excluding fuel for 550. Sold it for 550. he spent days repairing it and spent 700 bucks, only for it to be lost. Econoboxs are not economical UNLESS you only need 1 vehicle and do little towing or work from it
.
But if you need a truck there is no need to spend all that extra insurance money ,taxes ,tags, inspection, to save a few gallons of gas in a econo box
"Everyone's a Republican when the lights go out, right?"
so what are we supposed to eat,sea weed?
Is taxation not prohibition. The taxes can be used to modernize farming,
e.g. by scrubbing the methane from the air in the stables or by feeding
the cows less gassy food or by replacing the cows' gut bacteria.
My principle is that the polluter pays for the solution.
If you want to keep eating beef, than you pay for the problem it causes.
UM, And Broccoli, do you eat it? Beans, do you eat them? Well, DON"T YOU DARE FART, or we will tax YOU!
This is the part about give a inch take a mile thing.
What is to stop them a couple years from now deciding you create x amount of methane and trying to tax you for it?
Or telling you that you must eat a certain yogurt to change YOUR gut bacteria.
Each action of this type sets a precedent for another similar action later.
I'm fine with paying more taxes, if it saves the world.
I understand that it costs money to give my little nephew a future.
Eating yogurt that reduces gassy bowels? Sure, I'll buy it.
Beef is the most energy consuming, water consuming, food inefficient, greenhouse gas emitting food there is. I eat almost no beef anymore. I'm not a vegetarian either. I just mostly eat chicken instead of beef and pork and less of it than in the past. And not even just because of climate change, but also because it's less damaging to my health.
I support the government using taxation to stimulate people in making the right choices, for the survival of humanity. Especially when it means the lower class can eat healthier, because they are basically forced to eat grease filled garbage now, because it's cheap.
I also support taxation to transfer more wealth from the wealthy to the poor, so they can afford luxuries like beef occasionally, instead of being reliant on food banks.
I am so sore and tired today from the experience.
I may have been abducted and this was a adverse reaction to some of the stuff they pumped me full of. Pizza hut was just a implanted fantasy to hide the experiments
I shit 3 times as much as I ate!
I found out a buddy of mine got spider bit sunday and his arm from elbow down is swollen twice it's normal size and he is vomiting and shitting like a goose.
So i coulda been worse.
So, yes, cows produce methane (which UV soon breaks down into CO2 and water - methane has a short life in the atmosphere) BUT cows are are very important in fertilizing the oceans. And, of course, the oceans are important in the carbon cycle, absorbing approximately 60% of CO2.
A good example of why simplifying things ('methane is bad') is not the right approach - the issues are much much more complex.
So, if you don't eat beef Ananas, then perhaps you should pay for the consequences ?
I wonder how well it would work to put tanks and valves on cows and we harvest the methane to heat our homes?
New Comment Go to top