|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: 2014 was hotter than 1998. 2015 data in yet? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined:
|
According to... ? Me. You. This is so easy you and I can reach a solid conclusion on this. About solar power you may be right I just hope that solar, plus wind, plus geo, plus nuclear, plus... can supply what we need. If we keep going in the current direction we will find out that it certainly does matter how high the water gets.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Me. You. This is so easy you and I can reach a solid conclusion on this. Clearly not. And I've been doing a fair amount of research the last couple of days trying to get to the bottom of this. I can't find anyone who actually predicts a melting of all the ice and the rise in sea levels this would cause.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Jon, CO2 is a green house gas yes?
Enough CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the average temperature of the globe to pretty much any temperature you want to worry about. Yes? Those are the facts.So if we keep adding CO2 eventually (some decade, century, millennium) the ice will melt is the conclusion. What problem do you have with this?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2423 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
quote: Actually, for new generating capacity, it is a cost-competitive option in about a third of places people live in the USA. Look at the total power-plant production and Solar is like 1%. But the number is like 20 times that for new power-plants being built. Solar and wind are the majority of new generation capacity I think. It is really expensive to dear down existing coal facilities (with lots of life left in them before the normal age of retirement) and to replace with solar. But that is a different issue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
And I've been doing a fair amount of research the last couple of days trying to get to the bottom of this. I can't find anyone who actually predicts a melting of all the ice and the rise in sea levels this would cause. You apparently don't know how to do research on the web.
This took me less than 2 minutes to find and that was with a 1 1/2 min pee break. What NosyNed, and anyone who really has done a fair amount of actual research on this, knows is that our best predictions are that sea levels will rise 80 cm to 1 m by the year 2100. We also know that, even if we stopped pooping and poisoning our planet immediately, today, the greenhouse gasses already accumulated will continue to warm the planet, especially the oceans, even more over a period of centuries. Since, because of people like you and your "fuck the long term planet if it's going to cost me short term profits" attitude we really don't hold out much hope for the prospect of lessening our poisoning by any appreciable degree any time in the near future. That means that warming, and the ice melt, and the sea level rise, will continue, and accelerate, for many more centuries. So the question is asked, "what is the maximum that sea levels can rise because of the ice melt?" You answer that question by looking at how much ice there is and what would the sea level rise be if it all melted. Not an unlikely scenario over the next millennium given the number of selfish uncaring people we have who are gladly adding more poisons to this world so they can keep their beer cold and who hide behind a short-term view of cost/benefit bullshit The data is in the body of this site on how much ice there is in the three major sets of ice sheets of Greenland, Eastern Antarctica and Western Antarctica. Any guesses as to what that sea level rise would be? I'll assume I don't have to hold your hand, walk you through the text to find the data and do the math for you to find the answer. If I'm wrong about that ... well, I have better things to do. You're on your own. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
LamarkNewAge writes:
How would solar work in Manhattan?
Actually, for new generating capacity, it is a cost-competitive option in about a third of places people live in the USA.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.4
|
Ringo asks:
How would solar work in Manhattan? I googled "solar power windows" and got this: Solar windows can power buildings | Computerworld plus rooftops & parking lot shading over parked cars. And rooftop vertical axis wind turbines.- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Actually, for new generating capacity, it is a cost-competitive option in about a third of places people live in the USA. Oh for fuck's sake already, will you address the actual points being made against your position? Cost is only a part of it. The real problem, as I said and as you quoted is that renewables like solar and wind just cannot provide the power our societies need.
But the number is like 20 times that for new power-plants being built. Solar and wind are the majority of new generation capacity I think. And I think you're wrong. How do you plan to settle this?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I'll assume I don't have to hold your hand, walk you through the text to find the data and do the math for you to find the answer. You might have to; because I read through that article and I couldn't find a single mention of a realistic 200 food rise in sea level or a prediction that we'll melt all the ice. What I did find was this:
quote: Did you even read the article before you pasted the link? The 200 foot rise in sea levels that would come from all the ice melting is specifically ruled out. I guess we'll just have to add this to the 'another laugh' category...In response to my claim that "I can't find anyone who actually predicts a melting of all the ice", you link to an article where a melting of all the ice is entirely ruled out. Thanks for the chuckle.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
The 200 foot rise in sea levels that would come from all the ice melting is specifically ruled out. It is not ruled out. It is just that they have short time horizons. If we put out enough CO2 the ice will melt. It has before.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8563 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
quote: The 200 foot rise in sea levels that would come from all the ice melting is specifically ruled out. In response to my claim that "I can't find anyone who actually predicts a melting of all the ice", you link to an article where a melting of all the ice is entirely ruled out. I see where NosyNed has already answered this. I have to ask: do you really think your statements are equivalent to the quote? Do you really think that "not making a suggestion" is specifically "ruling it out"? I mean, this isn't even in the least bit subtle. How the hell does logic equate the two? Let me ask you this: is it your contention now that since nobody is suggesting the ice sheets will melt away to nothing that means the ice sheets will not melt at all? Do you contend that the ice sheets are not melting right now, today? Since we already know this warming is going to continue for centuries do you contend that the ice sheets are just going to sit there in all their icy splendor without any melt? Further, if the ice sheets are melting today and will continue so for many centuries, even though nobody is suggesting they will melt to nothing, how much melting could there possibly be? 1%? 6%? 60%? Do you not comprehend that this warming, and the melting of the ice sheets and the rise in sea levels, will continue even if we stop pumping carbon into our atmosphere today? Do you not comprehend that this warming, and the melting of the ice sheets and the rise in sea levels, will continue for many centuries even if we stop pumping carbon into our atmosphere today? Do you not comprehend that if we continue to pump carbon into our atmosphere at prodigious rates, as seems likely, this warming will accelerate, ice sheet melting will accelerate, sea level rise will accelerate? Final questions. How far can this scenario go over the next millennia+? What is the logical extreme of this continuous acceleration of global warming, ice sheet melting, sea level rising? Even if "nobody is suggesting any of the ice caps will melt away to nothing" what is the maximum, worst case scenario, possible? That is what this subtopic of this thread is about. That is what NosyNed was stating. And despite your weaseling around you did, in fact, find the data in the article as promised, you did the math and you now know the answer. So cut the bullshit. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given. Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LamarkNewAge Member Posts: 2423 Joined: Member Rating: 1.2 |
Google
You can see by the news lines that they were 61% of new-generating capacity in 2015. Wind was 47% and I think solar was 14% (I'm in a hurry and don't have time right now so go into it). Google news link. Keep checking the link. Will update with tons of new news items every time you click.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
A worst-case scenario means nothing if there is no reasonable way that scenario could come to pass.
And there's a reason the experts are not suggesting that these things will happen: because the scenario is so fucking absurd and unrealistic that not even the most die-hard opponents of fossil fuel use within the scientific community can bring themselves to advance such an academically dishonest position. We don't need to hope "renewables get adopted" soon lest we melt all the ice and drown the city of New York as NosyNed has suggested because that's literally not going to happen and no one is predicting it will. So it doesn't make "some dollars 'wasted' on solar panels ... seem like a bargin" - it makes it seem like the frantic fear-fueled foolishness that it is.
Let me ask you this: is it your contention now that since nobody is suggesting the ice sheets will melt away to nothing that means the ice sheets will not melt at all? Do you contend that the ice sheets are not melting right now, today? Since we already know this warming is going to continue for centuries do you contend that the ice sheets are just going to sit there in all their icy splendor without any melt? I think that the serious rises in sea level are so far into the future that to sit in the cold disease-ridden dark (which is what adopting renewable energy means) to avoid a few meters of sea level rise in a few hundred years or more is stupid. And it's certainly far more self destructive than our current use of carbon. I think that if we really want to help future generations we can do so better by creating the wealth and technology useful for adapting to the new realities than by retreating into our caves and mud huts. Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I see what you did there. Very clever.
I'll deal with you when I get home. Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
A worst-case scenario means nothing if there is no reasonable way that scenario could come to pass. The way this can come to pass is if we just keep doing what we are doing now. Since we are doing it I'd say you'd have to call it a reasonable possibility. Continuing to dump excess CO2 is all that is needed. In addition, this as I"ve been presenting it is not a a worst-case scenario at all! In fact it is best case. That is the rise will take place over centuries and not faster. I'm saying we don't know how long it may take and that centuries are the likely time-frame giving us time to move entire cities if we get started on it. The worst-case scenario for sea level rise involves unknown tipping points where positive feedback loops take over and produce ever accelerating warming and rise. Methane release from sinks of it for example. There are a lot of things we don't know and we are playing with it all very carelessly.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024