All Things Environment

[Kismet]

Fascinating reporting, animation and design on this piece on the North Atlantic, Gulf Stream and potential changes for climate. Also quite a bit of disagreement on what the current measurements mean. Nice visual presentation of the various measurements - article appears to be pretty balanced in its reporting here.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... hange.html

Oren Lyons has been a long-time proponent on climate effects if the Gulf Stream were to change substantially.
https://centerforneweconomics.org/publi ... s-melting/

He was talking about it as far back as 2004

[cradleandshoot]

Fascinating reporting, animation and design on this piece on the North Atlantic, Gulf Stream and potential changes for climate. Also quite a bit of disagreement on what the current measurements mean. Nice visual presentation of the various measurements - article appears to be pretty balanced in its reporting here.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... hange.html

Oren Lyons has been a long-time proponent on climate effects if the Gulf Stream were to change substantially.
https://centerforneweconomics.org/publi ... s-melting/

He was talking about it as far back as 2004

Interesting article. I don't say this to be critical of you. I bet I have read a hundred articles just in the past year pointing out potential environmental calamities that are claimed to be caused by CC. I have asked this question before and never as of yet had an answer to it. What is the mechanism that will reverse CC/GW? Is the magic bullet simply reducing co2 gas? When will planet earth reach a happy equilibrium that makes the environmental extremists happy? My instinct tells me that the extremists are much happier having problems they need to fix than explaining how their solutions will solve the problems they say exist? IMO the extremists don't have the slightest clue if their solutions will work, outside of what climate models tell them. Hey since the dire predictions all come a 100 years from now... Who is ever going to know?

[Kismet]

Fascinating reporting, animation and design on this piece on the North Atlantic, Gulf Stream and potential changes for climate. Also quite a bit of disagreement on what the current measurements mean. Nice visual presentation of the various measurements - article appears to be pretty balanced in its reporting here.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... hange.html

Oren Lyons has been a long-time proponent on climate effects if the Gulf Stream were to change substantially.
https://centerforneweconomics.org/publi ... s-melting/

He was talking about it as far back as 2004

Interesting article. I don't say this to be critical of you. I bet I have read a hundred articles just in the past year pointing out potential environmental calamities that are claimed to be caused by CC. I have asked this question before and never as of yet had an answer to it. What is the mechanism that will reverse CC/GW? Is the magic bullet simply reducing co2 gas? When will planet earth reach a happy equilibrium that makes the environmental extremists happy? My instinct tells me that the extremists are much happier having problems they need to fix than explaining how their solutions will solve the problems they say exist? IMO the extremists don't have the slightest clue if their solutions will work, outside of what climate models tell them. Hey since the dire predictions all come a 100 years from now... Who is ever going to know?

I think their point is/was that they have to continue to study and do these kinds of measurements to establish the cause and effect for sure before nature does it for us. In this case, the speculation is that Europe might be more like Morocco as well as other displacements of climate both warmer and wetter, colder and drier.

It wasn't meant to prove anything but only to put it all in some kind of context and decide what to do next

[jhu72]

Fascinating reporting, animation and design on this piece on the North Atlantic, Gulf Stream and potential changes for climate. Also quite a bit of disagreement on what the current measurements mean. Nice visual presentation of the various measurements - article appears to be pretty balanced in its reporting here.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... hange.html

Oren Lyons has been a long-time proponent on climate effects if the Gulf Stream were to change substantially.
https://centerforneweconomics.org/publi ... s-melting/

He was talking about it as far back as 2004

Interesting article. I don't say this to be critical of you. I bet I have read a hundred articles just in the past year pointing out potential environmental calamities that are claimed to be caused by CC. I have asked this question before and never as of yet had an answer to it. What is the mechanism that will reverse CC/GW? Is the magic bullet simply reducing co2 gas? When will planet earth reach a happy equilibrium that makes the environmental extremists happy? My instinct tells me that the extremists are much happier having problems they need to fix than explaining how their solutions will solve the problems they say exist? IMO the extremists don't have the slightest clue if their solutions will work, outside of what climate models tell them. Hey since the dire predictions all come a 100 years from now... Who is ever going to know?

... the solution, stop pumping CO2 into atmosphere, CO2 in the atmosphere decreases over a period of time, the atmosphere cools back to where it was. You go back to your original CO2 content and atmospheric temperature. This would have worked maybe if we had stopped burning fossil fuel 30 years ago.

This simple solution will no longer work, because the temperature has risen enough that we are now putting excess CH4 into the atmosphere by melting the arctic tundra. CH4 is a greenhouse gas 25 times more powerful per unit volume than CO2. So now we have two problems, mechanisms for driving the temperature higher. We have to stop both processes if you want to go back to where you started. I don't frankly see us going back to where we started. We want to get the temperature LOWER, as close to the starting point as possible. I suspect man on this planet is going to be faced with the task of managing the planet's atmosphere forever in order to maintain its habitability.

So the solution given where we are is to start by stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Let the excess CO2 flush out of the atmosphere. Begin to address the problem of reducing the excess CH4. We are no longer trying to get back to where we were, but trying to maintain the planet as habitable as possible.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Fascinating reporting, animation and design on this piece on the North Atlantic, Gulf Stream and potential changes for climate. Also quite a bit of disagreement on what the current measurements mean. Nice visual presentation of the various measurements - article appears to be pretty balanced in its reporting here.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... hange.html

Oren Lyons has been a long-time proponent on climate effects if the Gulf Stream were to change substantially.
https://centerforneweconomics.org/publi ... s-melting/

He was talking about it as far back as 2004

Interesting article. I don't say this to be critical of you. I bet I have read a hundred articles just in the past year pointing out potential environmental calamities that are claimed to be caused by CC. I have asked this question before and never as of yet had an answer to it. What is the mechanism that will reverse CC/GW? Is the magic bullet simply reducing co2 gas? When will planet earth reach a happy equilibrium that makes the environmental extremists happy? My instinct tells me that the extremists are much happier having problems they need to fix than explaining how their solutions will solve the problems they say exist? IMO the extremists don't have the slightest clue if their solutions will work, outside of what climate models tell them. Hey since the dire predictions all come a 100 years from now... Who is ever going to know?

... the solution, stop pumping CO2 into atmosphere, CO2 in the atmosphere decreases over a period of time, the atmosphere cools back to where it was. You go back to your original CO2 content and atmospheric temperature. This would have worked maybe if we had stopped burning fossil fuel 30 years ago.

This simple solution will no longer work, because the temperature has risen enough that we are now putting excess CH4 into the atmosphere by melting the arctic tundra. CH4 is a greenhouse gas 25 times more powerful per unit volume than CO2. So now we have two problems, mechanisms for driving the temperature higher. We have to stop both processes if you want to go back to where you started. I don't frankly see us going back to where we started. We want to get the temperature LOWER, as close to the starting point as possible. I suspect man on this planet is going to be faced with the task of managing the planet's atmosphere forever in order to maintain its habitability.

So the solution given where we are is to start by stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Let the excess CO2 flush out of the atmosphere. Begin to address the problem of reducing the excess CH4. We are no longer trying to get back to where we were, but trying to maintain the planet as habitable as possible.

https://www.sciencealert.com/earth-s-at ... ears-or-so

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... alism.html

So this is this is the reason we are going to spend trillions of dollars to save the planet? So its inhabitants can live like effing pigs GOOD JOB AMERICANS?

[jhu72]

Sovereign rating downgrades coming to those who ignore climate change.

[cradleandshoot]

Sovereign rating downgrades coming to those who ignore climate change.

I can't think of any country I trust more than the Chicoms. I guess those PhD types are much more trustworthy and have more knowledge than the average American. ...NOT. The proof is you can be a distinguished PhD type and still be as dumb as a box of rocks.

[PizzaSnake]

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/21/97841692 ... nt-retreat

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.axios.com/degrowth-economic ... 87305.html

Degrowth, is that not a term that only the FLP environmental fruitloops could ever invent and then glom on to??

[PizzaSnake]

https://www.axios.com/degrowth-economic ... 87305.html

Degrowth, is that not a term that only the FLP environmental fruitloops could ever invent and then glom on to??

Don’t know about “degrowth”, but I know the current course is not good.

However, in the spirit of Swift I have a modest proposal: eliminate 90% of the human population, stat.

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.axios.com/degrowth-economic ... 87305.html

Degrowth, is that not a term that only the FLP environmental fruitloops could ever invent and then glom on to??

Don’t know about “degrowth”, but I know the current course is not good.

However, in the spirit of Swift I have a modest proposal: eliminate 90% of the human population, stat.

+1 I had a discussion years back with an environmental fruit loop who made a similar request. I think he was not quite as radical as you. I think he was stuck on a figure around 30 percent of the population should be eradicated. Why quibble about the numbers?

[lagerhead]

The FLP folks should be happy with the 47% of republicans who won’t get vaccinated instant population control. COVID19 was called the “boomer remover” for a reason.

[PizzaSnake]

https://www.axios.com/degrowth-economic ... 87305.html

Degrowth, is that not a term that only the FLP environmental fruitloops could ever invent and then glom on to??

Don’t know about “degrowth”, but I know the current course is not good.

However, in the spirit of Swift I have a modest proposal: eliminate 90% of the human population, stat.

+1 I had a discussion years back with an environmental fruit loop who made a similar request. I think he was not quite as radical as you. I think he was stuck on a figure around 30 percent of the population should be eradicated. Why quibble about the numbers?

I like to think of myself as a member of the nightshade family...

[Typical Lax Dad]

My air must be clean as a whistle!

[runrussellrun]

[clis?

[runrussellrun]

[
"beds are b

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.axios.com/degrowth-economic ... 87305.html

Degrowth, is that not a term that only the FLP environmental fruitloops could ever invent and then glom on to??

Don’t know about “degrowth”, but I know the current course is not good.

However, in the spirit of Swift I have a modest proposal: eliminate 90% of the human population, stat.

+1 I had a discussion years back with an environmental fruit loop who made a similar request. I think he was not quite as radical as you. I think he was stuck on a figure around 30 percent of the population should be eradicated. Why quibble about the numbers?

My sister invited THIS guy to her New Years eve party.........couldn't make him, but met him a few weeks later.

"beds are burning.....Pete Garrett"

I like clean drinking water, cradle. YOU? you allowed love canal, still do. Should have been public hangings, for them polluters....instead, they become judges.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ofrqm6-LCqs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejorQVy3m8E

You need to ease up on the weed a little bit there dude. Love canal was a problem in Niagara Falls before i was even born. Back to your bong and have a great afternoon .

[Kismet]

https://www.axios.com/degrowth-economic ... 87305.html

Degrowth, is that not a term that only the FLP environmental fruitloops could ever invent and then glom on to??

Don’t know about “degrowth”, but I know the current course is not good.

However, in the spirit of Swift I have a modest proposal: eliminate 90% of the human population, stat.

+1 I had a discussion years back with an environmental fruit loop who made a similar request. I think he was not quite as radical as you. I think he was stuck on a figure around 30 percent of the population should be eradicated. Why quibble about the numbers?

My sister invited THIS guy to her New Years eve party.........couldn't make him, but met him a few weeks later.

"beds are burning.....Pete Garrett"

I like clean drinking water, cradle. YOU? you allowed love canal, still do. Should have been public hangings, for them polluters....instead, they become judges.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ofrqm6-LCqs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejorQVy3m8E

You need to ease up on the weed a little bit there dude. Love canal was a problem in Niagara Falls before i was even born. Back to your bong and have a great afternoon .

Get used to it, dude! Your King Andy and your state legislature just reached an ageeement to legalize recreational MJ. Bong prices might be going up along with your taxes.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/nyre ... juana.html

It's all taxable, of course. Hey wow man!

[cradleandshoot]

https://www.axios.com/degrowth-economic ... 87305.html

Degrowth, is that not a term that only the FLP environmental fruitloops could ever invent and then glom on to??

Don’t know about “degrowth”, but I know the current course is not good.

However, in the spirit of Swift I have a modest proposal: eliminate 90% of the human population, stat.

+1 I had a discussion years back with an environmental fruit loop who made a similar request. I think he was not quite as radical as you. I think he was stuck on a figure around 30 percent of the population should be eradicated. Why quibble about the numbers?

My sister invited THIS guy to her New Years eve party.........couldn't make him, but met him a few weeks later.

"beds are burning.....Pete Garrett"

I like clean drinking water, cradle. YOU? you allowed love canal, still do. Should have been public hangings, for them polluters....instead, they become judges.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ofrqm6-LCqs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejorQVy3m8E

You need to ease up on the weed a little bit there dude. Love canal was a problem in Niagara Falls before i was even born. Back to your bong and have a great afternoon .

Get used to it, dude! Your King Andy and your state legislature just reached an ageeement to legalize recreational MJ. Bong prices might be going up along with your taxes.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/nyre ... juana.html

It's all taxable, of course. Hey wow man!

From a former pot head we always use to make our own bongs, pipes actually. A used toilet paper roll and some tin foil always got the job done. It is amazing how creative a pothead can be if they don't have any rolling papers. I'm guessing all those potheads in NYS will find a new use for those seeds. I'm guessing the bidness of growing lights is about to go through the roof. Maybe I can plant a few rows in between my tomatoes?