Jylhavuori
Active Member
Ok this is a climate thread. Sea of lemmings fits here nicely hihihi
Climate in the 21st Century
- Thread starter Jimdamick
- Start date
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
I'll end with it his opinion and he is playing with words, I also noticed he is professing his Christian faith on the article lead in, so much for logical thought and reason. To me truth is devoid of belief, as in a video tape, which can be both factual and true. I have beliefs and opinions and mostly label them as that, but I do try to present facts which I believe to be true and if not will correct them, if I catch them in time. Some people believe what they want to and facts or truth have little to do with it. I suppose the real difference between facts and truth is personal integrity. In science once your integrity and veracity are questioned seriously, you are finished as a scientist, mistakes are forgiven, but fraud is not.
Mephisto666
Well-Known Member
I've spent over 50 years trying to figure this shit out as you succinctly put it, and am now confused as ever.
Didn't spend enough time watching the flow of water I guess.
Or maybe it's was the drugs?
Jylhavuori
Active Member
Idk I've had like 8 severe psychoses, few of them grandiotic. Must've been the drugs for me lolI've spent over 50 years trying to figure this shit out as you succinctly put it, and am now confused as ever.
Didn't spend enough time watching the overflow I guess.
Or maybe it's was the drugs?
My brain chemistry is a gentle mix of leponex and some experimental medications while hospitalized. Plus the plethora of the rest of Pharmacy Fennica.
what can I say... they won't keep me there more than mandatory, 2-12weeks.
I like to think my foolishness is diminishing
Last edited:
Jylhavuori
Active Member
Maybe another thread about unity
Please let's not fill a good thread with so far out of context material for the rest.
rollitup.org
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Back to climate matters …
www.scientificamerican.com
pumping carbon dioxide underground? It’ll find a way back up and out. Once green energy becomes abundant, the smart solution is to take the carbon dioxide and refine it to a stable storage form (graphite) or fuel, like for aircraft.
Pipelines Touted as Carbon Capture Solution Spark Uncertainty and Opposition
Federal investment in carbon capture could help fight climate change, but this technology is facing fierce opposition
pumping carbon dioxide underground? It’ll find a way back up and out. Once green energy becomes abundant, the smart solution is to take the carbon dioxide and refine it to a stable storage form (graphite) or fuel, like for aircraft.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
It would make jet fuel carbon neutral in a sense, and I see no alternative to jet fuel for long haul flights with lots of passengers. Short haul is best served by electric highspeed rail as they are doing in Europe and Asia. Add up the flights from Boston to Atlanta and major cities in between, even further south and there is more than a market for highspeed rail. It makes sense from a logistics and convenience POV, at least between major urban centers and the east coast is almost one continuous city, north to south.Back to climate matters …
Pipelines Touted as Carbon Capture Solution Spark Uncertainty and Opposition
Federal investment in carbon capture could help fight climate change, but this technology is facing fierce opposition
pumping carbon dioxide underground? It’ll find a way back up and out. Once green energy becomes abundant, the smart solution is to take the carbon dioxide and refine it to a stable storage form (graphite) or fuel, like for aircraft.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
High-speed rail works ok on the Atlantic seaboard, though I would not relish a trip from Rockport to Miami by rail.
Out west, with our poor geology leading to cities placed not in lines, passenger rail is more of a problem than a solution.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
High speed would run from Boston to say Atlanta eventually but could make money before it was completed there would be 250 to 300 mph express trains between major destinations. It would need to be maglev and under or above ground most of the way, high capital costs, by calculating the carriage fees a lot of private capital could be raised by a private/government consortium. Traffic between Boston and NY would be high and so would traffic from NY to DC with points in between served too. By also restricting short haul flights like Europe, the government could encourage ridership, 3 or 4 hours is the minimum time for any flight, most spent on the ground at the airport, far outside town. Maglev at 250 to 300 mph with fast acceleration and deceleration could go over 1000 miles at the same time it took to take a 200-mile flight, if it was an express train and it would get you to the city center or close to its transport hubs, a lot closer than the airport. Just add up the airline tickets up and down the east coast for a year to see the revenue potential.
It's not just flight time, it is security, traffic and arriving an hour early at an airport far outside town, it is total time in transit and convenience, that is what needs to be compared. It is about a thousand miles by road from Boston to Atlanta, hitting major cities in between and might be about that for a maglev line too, so 4 hours from Boston to Atlanta express, with stops in NY and DC. Atlanta is a major national and international airline hub, and it would save a lot of local traffic coming into the airport, so is NY.
Last edited:
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
One rationale that can be used by governments, politicians and of course the wealthy to keep the vast majority of people poor or lower middle class is all the extra carbon that consumption and travel would produce. It would too with the way our current energy economy works, the bottom 50% of the population gets 12.5% of the national wealth, what if we doubled that, with the way we live and use energy, what would it do to our carbon footprint? I think as a matter of necessity, we might need a green economy to have a more economically equitable one. If more people have more money, they will want to do things and go places like the more affluent ones do now. During covid everybody stayed home, and the price of travel and gas fell through the floor, but if the lower income half of the population had more wealth, more of everything would be required. That is why the majority of income distribution should be through, education, healthcare and social services, cutting people checks is a last resort, at least until we get a lot more sustainable and much greener. Perhaps in the future the more the population declines through affluence, education and female emancipation, the better each person will be able to live.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
I dunno how much lower solar can go, but batteries can still come down a long way in cost and should with EVs stimulating mass production, competition and more choice between types of batteries. How much will costs continue to drop over the next 10 years? Already solar is the cheapest form of energy generation and cheap battery storage can make it much more feasible for grids and homes.
electrek.co
Solar and battery storage prices have dropped almost 90% in 10 years
The cost of solar power has fallen by 87%, and battery storage by 85% in the past decade, according to a new study – here's why.
electrek.co
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Taking the 'fossil fuels' out of fuel cells. Revolutionary new technology.
58,159 views Oct 1, 2023
PFAS, or 'Forever Chemicals', are found in all sorts of everyday products, from non-stick pans to stain resistant carpets and fire fighting foams. They're also used to make separator membranes in billions of fuel cells, batteries and other devices. But scientists have discovered that PFAS chemicals can be extremely hazardous to human health, so the race is on to find alternatives. Now a Swedish start-up has perfected a commercial product that could go a long way to achieving that goal.
Mephisto666
Well-Known Member
77 years left before the end of this Century.
Average temperature of the Planet has increased by 1.5 C over the last 200 years, rising exponentially.
Another rise of 1.5 and we all are very fucked, and it will certainly happen according to every study out there unless we triple our efforts to reduce the amount of carbon emissions from it's present level.
Tripple our efforts.
Every industrialized country has to meet that goal, at the very least.
Or this years weather will be called "the good old days"
Average temperature of the Planet has increased by 1.5 C over the last 200 years, rising exponentially.
Another rise of 1.5 and we all are very fucked, and it will certainly happen according to every study out there unless we triple our efforts to reduce the amount of carbon emissions from it's present level.
Tripple our efforts.
Every industrialized country has to meet that goal, at the very least.
Or this years weather will be called "the good old days"
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Ukraine’s Strategy to Weaken Russia’s Military, Logistics in Crimea | WSJ
16,259 views Oct 2, 2023 #Russia #Ukraine #WSJ
As Ukraine continues its push to retake territory, Russia’s annexed Crimea presents a major threat for its role as a logistics hub and a heavily militarized base. Crimea is critical for Moscow’s operations in Ukraine as it serves as a supply hub for Russian forces resisting Ukraine’s counteroffensive.
Sevastopol is also the home of Russia’s Black Sea fleet, which has fired missiles at military and civilian infrastructure within Ukraine.
WSJ explains how Kyiv is trying to neutralize Russian forces on the peninsula.
printer
Well-Known Member
Montana appeals landmark climate change ruling in case brought by young advocates
The state of Montana is set to appeal a landmark state court ruling that sided with youth climate activists who sued the state for contributing to climate change.
Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen’s (R) office filed a notice of appeal Friday in the case Held v. Montana, which was decided by District Court Judge Kathy Seeley in August. A coalition of youth climate activists sued the state over a 2023 statute that exempted fossil fuel permitting from consideration of greenhouse gas output. Plaintiffs argued — and Seeley agreed — that this violated their right under the Montana constitution to a “clean and healthful environment.”
“We look forward to the argument before the Montana Supreme Court,” a spokesman for Knudsen’s office told The Hill in an email.
In the meantime, the state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) announced last week that it will solicit Montanans’ suggestions on potential updates to the Montana Environmental Policy Act, which still operates under decades-old administrative regulations (MEPA). MEPA was the operative statute for the greenhouse gas rule that Seeley ruled against.
“MEPA has been in the spotlight recently, particularly with the Held v. State decision earlier this summer,” Montana DEQ Director Chris Dorrington said in a statement. “We want to start a thoughtful dialogue about greenhouse gas emissions and other topics, and we are seeking input that is balanced and driven by sound science.”
After a June trial, the first in the U.S. involving constitutional questions regarding the right to a healthy environment, Seeley ruled in favor of the activists. Knudsen’s office signaled at the time that it would appeal the decision, calling it “absurd” and saying the plaintiffs “found an ideological judge who bent over backward to allow the case to move forward.”
The state court ruling did not establish a federal precedent, but experts have said it is likely to add fuel to similar court efforts in the other states with some form of constitutional environmental protection — New York, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. Nine more states had proposed environmental protection amendments as of 2023.
thehill.com
The state of Montana is set to appeal a landmark state court ruling that sided with youth climate activists who sued the state for contributing to climate change.
Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen’s (R) office filed a notice of appeal Friday in the case Held v. Montana, which was decided by District Court Judge Kathy Seeley in August. A coalition of youth climate activists sued the state over a 2023 statute that exempted fossil fuel permitting from consideration of greenhouse gas output. Plaintiffs argued — and Seeley agreed — that this violated their right under the Montana constitution to a “clean and healthful environment.”
“We look forward to the argument before the Montana Supreme Court,” a spokesman for Knudsen’s office told The Hill in an email.
In the meantime, the state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) announced last week that it will solicit Montanans’ suggestions on potential updates to the Montana Environmental Policy Act, which still operates under decades-old administrative regulations (MEPA). MEPA was the operative statute for the greenhouse gas rule that Seeley ruled against.
“MEPA has been in the spotlight recently, particularly with the Held v. State decision earlier this summer,” Montana DEQ Director Chris Dorrington said in a statement. “We want to start a thoughtful dialogue about greenhouse gas emissions and other topics, and we are seeking input that is balanced and driven by sound science.”
After a June trial, the first in the U.S. involving constitutional questions regarding the right to a healthy environment, Seeley ruled in favor of the activists. Knudsen’s office signaled at the time that it would appeal the decision, calling it “absurd” and saying the plaintiffs “found an ideological judge who bent over backward to allow the case to move forward.”
The state court ruling did not establish a federal precedent, but experts have said it is likely to add fuel to similar court efforts in the other states with some form of constitutional environmental protection — New York, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. Nine more states had proposed environmental protection amendments as of 2023.
Montana appeals landmark climate change ruling in case brought by young advocates
The state of Montana is set to appeal a landmark state court ruling that sided with youth climate activists who sued the state for contributing to climate change. Montana Attorney General Austin Kn…
thehill.com
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
We the old want to lock in the future of the young until after we are dead and gone!Montana appeals landmark climate change ruling in case brought by young advocates
The state of Montana is set to appeal a landmark state court ruling that sided with youth climate activists who sued the state for contributing to climate change.
Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen’s (R) office filed a notice of appeal Friday in the case Held v. Montana, which was decided by District Court Judge Kathy Seeley in August. A coalition of youth climate activists sued the state over a 2023 statute that exempted fossil fuel permitting from consideration of greenhouse gas output. Plaintiffs argued — and Seeley agreed — that this violated their right under the Montana constitution to a “clean and healthful environment.”
“We look forward to the argument before the Montana Supreme Court,” a spokesman for Knudsen’s office told The Hill in an email.
In the meantime, the state Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) announced last week that it will solicit Montanans’ suggestions on potential updates to the Montana Environmental Policy Act, which still operates under decades-old administrative regulations (MEPA). MEPA was the operative statute for the greenhouse gas rule that Seeley ruled against.
“MEPA has been in the spotlight recently, particularly with the Held v. State decision earlier this summer,” Montana DEQ Director Chris Dorrington said in a statement. “We want to start a thoughtful dialogue about greenhouse gas emissions and other topics, and we are seeking input that is balanced and driven by sound science.”
After a June trial, the first in the U.S. involving constitutional questions regarding the right to a healthy environment, Seeley ruled in favor of the activists. Knudsen’s office signaled at the time that it would appeal the decision, calling it “absurd” and saying the plaintiffs “found an ideological judge who bent over backward to allow the case to move forward.”
The state court ruling did not establish a federal precedent, but experts have said it is likely to add fuel to similar court efforts in the other states with some form of constitutional environmental protection — New York, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. Nine more states had proposed environmental protection amendments as of 2023.
Montana appeals landmark climate change ruling in case brought by young advocates
The state of Montana is set to appeal a landmark state court ruling that sided with youth climate activists who sued the state for contributing to climate change. Montana Attorney General Austin Kn…
printer
Well-Known Member
Being sarcastic.
Jylhavuori
Active Member
Im slow, usually in some amount
Sickofitall420247
Well-Known Member
Care to show everyone your solar panels and batteries? Ya know since they are so cheap and all.I dunno how much lower solar can go, but batteries can still come down a long way in cost and should with EVs stimulating mass production, competition and more choice between types of batteries. How much will costs continue to drop over the next 10 years? Already solar is the cheapest form of energy generation and cheap battery storage can make it much more feasible for grids and homes.
Solar and battery storage prices have dropped almost 90% in 10 years
The cost of solar power has fallen by 87%, and battery storage by 85% in the past decade, according to a new study – here's why.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
It's getting cheaper by the year and the article supports that, soon it will reach a point where it is feasible for more people, especially where power rates are high. I'm not using solar and don't expect to before moving out of this house, would have liked to buy an EV, but the batteries, prices and even supply weren't there when I bought a car last year. The battery factories are going up all over the place and mass manufacture will begin in the next couple of years for EVs, home storage could use other types of batteries. We've only really just begun the green energy revolution and the next decade should see big changes. Do you think every automaker on the planet is betting the farm on EVs for no reason?