BillT Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 4 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said: Sure we can stop "climate change"....at least the anthropogenic part. That's silly to say we cannot. But put me on the list that says stuff like the Paris agreement insults the intelligence of the rest of the science community if they think that is the way to do it. It will have a negligible effect on climate change even if you assume everyone obeys the agreement and continues it even after 2030. indeed we could all STOP breathing.......claiming humans can stop releasing co2 into the air is LUNACY in the extreme.......and to stop the anthro part requires us to stop exhaling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 Just now, BillT said: indeed we could all STOP breathing.......claiming humans can stop releasing co2 into the air is LUNACY in the extreme.......and to stop the anthro part requires us to stop exhaling. No it doesn't. Don't be silly. Breathing is part of the carbon cycle naturally...pretty much all of our CO2 exhaled is accounted for by plants and other carbon sinks, so our breathing has basically zero impact on CO2 emissions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillT Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 3 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said: No it doesn't. Don't be silly. Breathing is part of the carbon cycle naturally...pretty much all of our CO2 exhaled is accounted for by plants and other carbon sinks, so our breathing has basically zero impact on CO2 emissions. by definition humans are part of NATURE = anything we do is part of nature = NATURAL...........and i am not being silly in correcting the SILLY claim that humans can STOP adding co2 to the air....the climate changes PERIOD we cant STOP climate change, my original point that you disagreed with remains intact.....humans CANT stop climate change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 2 minutes ago, BillT said: by definition humans are part of NATURE = anything we do is part of nature = NATURAL...........and i am not being silly in correcting the SILLY claim that humans can STOP adding co2 to the air....the climate changes PERIOD we cant STOP climate change, my original point that you disagreed with remains intact.....humans CANT stop climate change. Sure we can...we transition to green energy and the anthropogenic part of CC has been reduced to negligible. I'm talking about anthropogenic climate change...not all climate change. We won't have control of natural cycles of climate change, but we sure as hell can have control over anthropogenic climate change. It's really not that difficult of a concept. There is obviously a lot of debate on the best way to transition to green energy, but saying we can't do it is pretty narrow-sighted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillT Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 1 minute ago, ORH_wxman said: Sure we can...we transition to green energy and the anthropogenic part of CC has been reduced to negligible. I'm talking about anthropogenic climate change...not all climate change. We won't have control of natural cycles of climate change, but we sure as hell can have control over anthropogenic climate change. It's really not that difficult of a concept. There is obviously a lot of debate on the best way to transition to green energy, but saying we can't do it is pretty narrow-sighted. I never said we couldnt go to green energy but since you brought it up yes we could spend trillions on green energy and stop using electricity because green CANT provide the baseline REQUIRED for industry.......we could go back to the stone age.........OR we could use science and stop this LUNACY that humans are controlling the weather and thereby driving the climate.....you are talking about politics i am attempting to discuss science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 2 minutes ago, BillT said: I never said we couldnt go to green energy but since you brought it up yes we could spend trillions on green energy and stop using electricity because green CANT provide the baseline REQUIRED for industry.......we could go back to the stone age.........OR we could use science and stop this LUNACY that humans are controlling the weather and thereby driving the climate.....you are talking about politics i am attempting to discuss science. I was discussing science...green energy would absolutely reduce emissions to the point of negligible AGW. That is a fact, not an opinion. You are the one bringing up politics discussing spending trillions of dollars....but I agree that isn't the way to do it, at least not in the manner presented by many advocates. I have been extremely critical over the years of these ridiculous climate agreements like Paris or Kyoto....they don't do jack for stopping climate change (it is incredible to me that this is scientifically shown and yet nobody really cares). The best way is to R&D the hell out of green energy so that everyone will want it because it's better than fossil fuels. This innovation will cost some money too, but it tends to be more effective than the alternative measures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillT Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 5 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said: I was discussing science...green energy would absolutely reduce emissions to the point of negligible AGW. That is a fact, not an opinion. You are the one bringing up politics discussing spending trillions of dollars....but I agree that isn't the way to do it, at least not in the manner presented by many advocates. I have been extremely critical over the years of these ridiculous climate agreements like Paris or Kyoto....they don't do jack for stopping climate change (it is incredible to me that this is scientifically shown and yet nobody really cares). The best way is to R&D the hell out of green energy so that everyone will want it because it's better than fossil fuels. This innovation will cost some money too, but it tends to be more effective than the alternative measures. i dont think we will agree.......but it is strange you say me mentioning spending trillions was politics and then you post "The best way is to R&D the hell out of green energy so that everyone will want it because it's better than fossil fuels." there is YOU admitting your ideas requires spending that money and it is NOT science at all that green is better than the present that is OPINION and is wrong....ty for being civil but i see no reason to continue i agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 28 minutes ago, BillT said: i dont think we will agree.......but it is strange you say me mentioning spending trillions was politics and then you post "The best way is to R&D the hell out of green energy so that everyone will want it because it's better than fossil fuels." there is YOU admitting your ideas requires spending that money and it is NOT science at all that green is better than the present that is OPINION and is wrong....ty for being civil but i see no reason to continue i agree to disagree. The whole point of R&Ding is to improve something...so if you R&D the hell out of green energy and make it better/cheaper than fossil fuels, then people will want it. I never claimed they are already better than fossil fuels. They aren't yet...they are expensive (in some areas they have gotten cheap, but not everywhere) and not reliable everywhere yet. In some spots they are great, but not all. And for discussing politics...I did not bring it up in my previous post where you had claimed I did...I only brought it up after you interjected with your trillions of dollars comment. Previously I had stuck to the science...science that says things like paris climate agreement won't change anything and that converting to green energy would drastically reduce our anthropogenic influence on the climate. Those are scientific points and not political points. I offered my policy idea later on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillT Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 10 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said: The whole point of R&Ding is to improve something...so if you R&D the hell out of green energy and make it better/cheaper than fossil fuels, then people will want it. I never claimed they are already better than fossil fuels. They aren't yet...they are expensive (in some areas they have gotten cheap, but not everywhere) and not reliable everywhere yet. In some spots they are great, but not all. And for discussing politics...I did not bring it up in my previous post where you had claimed I did...I only brought it up after you interjected with your trillions of dollars comment. Previously I had stuck to the science...science that says things like paris climate agreement won't change anything and that converting to green energy would drastically reduce our anthropogenic influence on the climate. Those are scientific points and not political points. I offered my policy idea later on. what R&D is going to overcome the fact the sun sets at night? what is going to overcome the problem with clouds? what is going to overcome the problem of moving the electricity from remote areas to where it is needed? and the attempt to shift to green is NOT science based in any way it is PURE politics(co2 in the air = GREEN the plants grow much better with more co2).....science already says what i wrote above.......may we please end this here? there is nothing possible to be gained by any response from either of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hazwoper Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 31 minutes ago, BillT said: what R&D is going to overcome the fact the sun sets at night? what is going to overcome the problem with clouds? what is going to overcome the problem of moving the electricity from remote areas to where it is needed? and the attempt to shift to green is NOT science based in any way it is PURE politics(co2 in the air = GREEN the plants grow much better with more co2).....science already says what i wrote above.......may we please end this here? there is nothing possible to be gained by any response from either of us. Battery storage and pump storage advancements will certainly help overcome many of those concerns. Upgrading transmission will help move the energy to the load centers along with the use of offshore wind (the first project in the US just went online). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JC-CT Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 50 minutes ago, ORH_wxman said: The whole point of R&Ding is to improve something...so if you R&D the hell out of green energy and make it better/cheaper than fossil fuels, then people will want it. I never claimed they are already better than fossil fuels. They aren't yet...they are expensive (in some areas they have gotten cheap, but not everywhere) and not reliable everywhere yet. In some spots they are great, but not all. And for discussing politics...I did not bring it up in my previous post where you had claimed I did...I only brought it up after you interjected with your trillions of dollars comment. Previously I had stuck to the science...science that says things like paris climate agreement won't change anything and that converting to green energy would drastically reduce our anthropogenic influence on the climate. Those are scientific points and not political points. I offered my policy idea later on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 22 minutes ago, hazwoper said: Battery storage and pump storage advancements will certainly help overcome many of those concerns. Upgrading transmission will help move the energy to the load centers along with the use of offshore wind (the first project in the US just went online). Yep, I don't get what is so hard about some of these concepts...but anyway. I digress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pazzo83 Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 The purge continues: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sugarloaf1989 Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 I hear that the NWS is to be replaced by the AWS or alternative weather service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
masomenos Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 4 hours ago, hazwoper said: Battery storage and pump storage advancements will certainly help overcome many of those concerns. Upgrading transmission will help move the energy to the load centers along with the use of offshore wind (the first project in the US just went online). Not to mention the huge strides being made in fusion technology. It really can't be stressed enough how important it is to keep these projects funded. Private investment will never be a substitute for government funding of the kind of technology that future generations will require. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillT Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 14 minutes ago, masomenos said: Not to mention the huge strides being made in fusion technology. It really can't be stressed enough how important it is to keep these projects funded. Private investment will never be a substitute for government funding of the kind of technology that future generations will require. were airplanes invented by government? cars? the railroad? telephone? tv? economically viable useful things get made with no help from government......bad ideas that wont work get funded by government.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donsutherland1 Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 From the Associated Press BREAKING: Trump administration mandating EPA scientific studies, data undergo review by political staff before public release. https://twitter.com/AP/status/824374557893083146 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JC-CT Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 11 hours ago, BillT said: were airplanes invented by government? cars? the railroad? telephone? tv? economically viable useful things get made with no help from government......bad ideas that wont work get funded by government.... Heh...just taking your first example, no airplanes weren't "invented" by the government. But in the early 20th century the NACA (the predecessor of NASA) was instrumental in driving research for new technologies, and the US military has always been a driving force behind the advancement of aerospace technology. And the railroad system wasn't a result of financial investment by the government? JFC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pazzo83 Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 14 hours ago, BillT said: were airplanes invented by government? cars? the railroad? telephone? tv? economically viable useful things get made with no help from government......bad ideas that wont work get funded by government.... Have you ever f*cking heard of NASA??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drstuess Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 LOUD NOISES! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillT Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 1 hour ago, pazzo83 said: Have you ever f*cking heard of NASA??? YES i have, are you old enough to understand everything i mentioned was invented long BEFORE nasa existed?????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hazwoper Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 27 minutes ago, BillT said: YES i have, are you old enough to understand everything i mentioned was invented long BEFORE nasa existed?????? And wind and solar energy came about prior to major federal funding! It was when the government realized these technologies made sense that they included funding to help get the technologies to where they are at present. Heck, I bet you don't even realize that it was a republican administration energy plan that gave rise to the wind energy production tax credit, do you?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillT Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 4 minutes ago, hazwoper said: And wind and solar energy came about prior to major federal funding! It was when the government realized these technologies made sense that they included funding to help get the technologies to where they are at present. Heck, I bet you don't even realize that it was a republican administration energy plan that gave rise to the wind energy production tax credit, do you?? apparently you dont know that wind power is centuries old technology, and that some locations that invested heavily in wind turbines no longer use them??? and indeed my grandparents used both wind and solar to DRY their clothing........and TY for demonstrating a point i made earlier with your republican comment, NOW please try to claim your side isnt playing politics! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hazwoper Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 2 minutes ago, BillT said: apparently you dont know that wind power is centuries old technology, and that some locations that invested heavily in wind turbines no longer use them??? and indeed my grandparents used both wind and solar to DRY their clothing........ You just proved my point, thanks Wind energy as a form of utility scale energy was not realized until the late 1970s and the technology was only just coming around in the late 90s. It wasn't until about 2001-03 when the technology blew up and turbine went from several hundred KW per turbine to now over 1MW to now 3-5MW per turbine. You can't lecture me on wind, brother. I work in the industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pazzo83 Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 34 minutes ago, BillT said: YES i have, are you old enough to understand everything i mentioned was invented long BEFORE nasa existed?????? Those things were all made more economically viable (by miniaturization among other things) by gov't entities like NASA. Those are just facts, sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillT Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 1 minute ago, pazzo83 said: Those things were all made more economically viable (by miniaturization among other things) by gov't entities like NASA. Those are just facts, sorry. utter nonsense........NONE of the things i mentioned were ever helped by government funding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pazzo83 Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 5 minutes ago, BillT said: utter nonsense........NONE of the things i mentioned were ever helped by government funding. Dude what? Communication satellites, broadcasting technology, semiconductors (now used in every single TV), etc etc - all of those things were supremely influenced and helped by gov't research at NASA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pazzo83 Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 Let's not even get into the advances in flight and aircraft made by NASA - it's not like they perfected LOE space travel or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hazwoper Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 8 minutes ago, BillT said: utter nonsense........NONE of the things i mentioned were ever helped by government funding. From Princeton report titled "Government Support of the Large Commercial Aircraft Industries of Japan, Europe, and the United States" In addition to the often indirect and generally unintended benefits to commercial manufacturers of military aircraft, the U.S. Government has directly funded R&D for civil applications through the aeronautics program at NASA and its predecessor, the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics (NACA). Figure 8-2 shows the funding history for NASA’s aeronautics program. Their research projects have produced many advances that improved the performance and safety of aircraft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pazzo83 Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 Telephone... modern day smartphones are a DIRECT result of the advances in miniaturization made by NASA in the 1960s and 1970s. This isn't even up for debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.