Climate Change - History and Forecasts

SpaceNut · 2022-10-02 20:27:26

First the Rubio voting was on https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/ … _00351.htm which is for Affordable Insulin Now Act not relief on a Hurricane.

The other is Jones Act restrictions to vessels providing disaster relief to Puerto Rico for the areas affected by Hurricane Fiona.

Hereis the declaration https://www.fema.gov/press-release/2022 … n-response

What was actually the story is how te Senate passed a short-term spending bill on Thursday that includes an additional $18.8 billion for the Federal Emergency Management Agency to respond to Hurricane Ian and future disasters. The vote was 72-25. where Scott, however, voted against it, while Rubio was not present for the vote, according to the U.S. Senate roll call.

The Democratic-led House followed up Friday with its approval, 230-201. The measure next goes to President Joe Biden’s desk to be signed into law. Republicans overwhelmingly opposed the measure.

kbd512 · 2022-10-03 00:11:22

SpaceNut,

This bill contains money for California, which has absolutely nothing to do with Florida.

It contains money for missile and munitions acquisition by the US Army / Navy / Air Force to fund the war in Ukraine, again, nothing to do with Florida.

I couldn't actually find the word "Florida" anywhere in the text of the bill:
H.R. 6833 Text

Measure Number: H.R. 6833 (A bill to amend title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to establish requirements with respect to cost-sharing for certain insulin products, and for other purposes. )
Measure Title: A bill to amend title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to establish requirements with respect to cost-sharing for certain insulin products, and for other purposes.

I'll give honorable mention for including the word "flood".

Now, sir, do you understand why Republicans are a little tired of this crap?

Billions upon billions of dollars allocated to the war in Ukraine BY NAME, but not one mention of the word "FLORIDA" anywhere in the text of the bill. No mention of the words "PUERTO RICO", either.

Can you figure out why the people we elect to represent us vote "NO!" on this nonsense?

Seriously, though, do you even know what your tax money is being spent on?

This is what your Democrat reps voted to enact.

Here, this is the best I can do, with regard of the possibility of FEMA money possibly being allocated to Florida and Puerto Rico:

Sec. 136. Notwithstanding sections 101, 104, and 106, to carry out the Hermit’s Peak/Calf Canyon Fire Assistance Act, there is appropriated $2,500,000,000, to remain available until expended, to the Department of Homeland Security for “Federal Emergency Management Agency—Hermit’s Peak/Calf Canyon Fire Assistance Account”, which shall be derived by transfer from amounts made available under the heading “Federal Emergency Management Agency—Disaster Relief Fund” in title VI of division B of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (Public Law 116–136), of which $1,000,000 shall be transferred to “Office of the Inspector General—Operations and Support” for oversight of activities authorized by the Hermit’s Peak/Calf Canyon Fire Assistance Act: Provided, That no amounts may be derived from amounts made available for major disasters declared pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.): Provided further, That amounts provided by this section shall be subject to the same authorities and conditions as if such amounts were provided by title III of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2022 (division F of Public Law 117–103): Provided further, That not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter until all funds provided by this section have been expended, the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency shall provide, in an appropriate format, quarterly reports to the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and the House of Representatives on the obligations and expenditures of the funds made available by this section: Provided further, That amounts transferred by this section that were previously designated by the Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant to the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 or a concurrent resolution on the budget are designated as an emergency requirement pursuant to section 4001(a)(1) of S. Con. Res. 14 (117th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2022, and section 1(e) of H. Res. 1151 (117th Congress), as engrossed in the House of Representatives on June 8, 2022.

SpaceNut · 2022-10-03 17:32:24

The amount of funds for Ukraine is a different issue for sure in that Russia should have never been able to do so without getting wiped out of power. Yes, the amounts are huge, and I wonder what the deal will be for repaying our good faith in democracy.

You hit on what I was reading as well in that some of this is so well hidden that no wonder the voting which has been occurring. That not only are the senate and congress are lying as to what the bills and acts are along with all of the news sites as well.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-10-05 04:46:44

27 to 78 cm of sea Level Rise Could be Locked in From Melting Greenland ice Caps
https://www.universetoday.com/157947/27 … -ice-caps/

kbd512 · 2022-10-05 18:46:02

In California, "green energy" is the latest government-run scam amongst big businesses:

The "Dirty Secrets" of California's Clean Energy | Jim Phelps

So-called "green energy" is merely a new fraud scheme for the left to use to exploit their citizens. Watch the video to learn about California's energy fraud schemes where no actual net "green energy" is produced. It's a game of Three-Card Monte. It's a way to extract more money from their rate paying customers while falsely claiming that "green energy" is being consumed.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-10-09 17:39:47

ESA satellites detect methane plume from Nord Stream leak

https://www.esa.int/Applications/Observ … tream_leak

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-10-25 16:48:17

Methane ‘Super-Emitters’ Mapped by NASA’s New Earth Space Mission

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/methane-s … ce-mission

kbd512 · 2022-10-26 16:46:46

Here it is, laid out in simple terms for the common man or woman:

California Insider | Is California’s Mission to Reach Zero-Emissions Possible? | Mark Mills

Dr. Mark Mills states that if you drive an EV made using today's technology, at best your "carbon footprint" is no better than a gasoline-powered car, and at worst, you may actually emit more CO2 than you would by driving a gasoline-powered car.

In this interview, Dr. Mills outlines "why that is so". In very simple terms, the mining / refining / shipping of all the materials that went into making that next Tesla battery represents between 1/3rd and 4/3rds of all the CO2 created by burning gasoline over a combustion engine vehicle's lifetime.

In his own terms, he says these "green energy" advocates seem to want cars that don't require mining anything, using any energy or chemicals to refine the materials to make the products they say they want, don't emit anything, don't weigh anything, don't need to be recycled, and last forever. Basically, he says those people appear to be after Unobtanium, either through ignorance or simply not caring.

Worse yet, the less financially stable members of western societies are actually subsidizing these EV toys that rich people buy so they can "virtue signal" while telling everyone else how dirty they are for being poorer and using gasoline to drive to work.

He says that the absolute maximum global oil consumption reduction, assuming it's not immediately consumed to make all these new wind turbines, photovoltaics, and batteries, would be around 10%.

The Biden Administration has just canceled the permit for a new Copper and Nickel mine here in America, which would supply some of the minerals and metals needed to make these new vehicles. Democrats have done this so many times now, I'm starting to think that they don't actually want anyone to have energy or mobility options, regardless of the source, even if it agrees with their "green ideology".

What kind of future are we actually getting with these new technologies supported by Democrat Party agenda?

1. Energy scarcity (especially if it's reliable hydrocarbon or nuclear or hydro energy, but all types seem to be affected)
2. Materials scarcity (either more costly materials or complete lack of availability)
3. Food scarcity (driven by higher energy prices and reduced fertilizer, which comes from fossil fuels)
4. Reduced standard of living (lower wages or all disposable income consumed by inflation)
5. Less economic activity, of whatever type (less ability to create new things)

Why are we doing this to ourselves?

We're basically doing the exact opposite of what we're claiming to do, but why?

If you believe in global warming, then why accelerate that process using unreliable energy and paltry energy storage mechanisms?

Is this actually about fear of AGW, or hatred of humanity, especially the poor?

If it's fear of AGW, then accelerating that process isn't helping one bit. If it's the latter, then that's plain old evil.

Terraformer · 2022-10-27 09:12:01

In his own terms, he says these "green energy" advocates seem to want cars that don't require mining anything, using any energy or chemicals to refine the materials to make the products they say they want, don't emit anything, don't weigh anything, don't need to be recycled, and last forever.

That's a tall order. Closest you could come is probably a mostly wooden velocar, but even then you need steel for the chain and gearing and wheels...

kbd512 · 2022-10-27 14:53:02

Terraformer,

So, even you admit that it's almost impossible, if not outright impossible, to make cars do what some of these environmentalists want them to do, without increased emissions or cost or both.

Do you also accept that the reason we don't have what people want, is a result of not knowing how to go about getting it?

We could throw more money at the solution, not that I think that will solve it, or we can approach solutions from new perspectives, but in the end a workable solution is probably going to be substantially similar to what we're already doing.

Natural gas has about 50% of the CO2 emissions of coal, per unit of thermal energy output, but it will never be significantly better than that. No 10X improvement in gas turbine efficiency is achievable. We can make a combustion engine anywhere between 50% and 65% efficient, but significantly greater efficiency is nearly impossible to achieve, especially as a workable system for thermal energy conversion into mechanical work output. A high temperature SOXE fuel cell could be 70% to 80% efficient, but significantly greater efficiency is not possible. Batteries are already around 95% efficient or better, but cramming in more electrons would require new materials that we don't know how to make.

Should we instead turn our attention to potentially more productive opportunities for energy efficiency improvement?

I ask because I don't think we can do substantially better here.

Calliban · 2022-10-27 17:06:49

It would be exceptionally difficult to achieve a genuine zero emissions road vehicle with current technology sets. Fossil fuels are built into every part of the supply chain. Mining is a very fuel intensive activity. Not only is diesel used to dig out the ore, but natural gas is often used for benefication. Reducing ores is very energy intensive. Plastics are solidified petrochemicals. Transporting heavy goods relies exclusively on diesel.

An electric vehicle is only zero emission at it's point of use. I think most people here already know that. It isn't at all clear at this point that electric road vehicles really do reduce CO2 emissions at all, compared to petrol or diesel powered counterparts. They may fail even in that limited objective. And why pretend that CO2 emissions are the only environmental impact worth caring about? Are they even the most important one? Do they justify felling forests and strip mining the earth to gather the requisite materials for BEVs?

I think we need to stop confusing Greens with Environmentalists. There are some genuine environmentalists that have advocated practical ways of reducing environmental impact. But Greens are cranky political idealists. They are not environmentalists. They are interested in idealistic solutions that often achieve the opposite to what would actualy be beneficial in reducing environmental impacts. The insistence on banning ICE vehicles by 2030 in the UK. The replacement of nuclear power with coal power in Germany. From an environmental perspective, these are mentally retarded policies. But they make perfect sense to Greens, because the issues have a spiritual value to them. They aren't about practical results as much as the moral value of the technology. This is really how these lunatics think.

Last edited by Calliban (2022-10-27 17:32:39)

kbd512 · 2022-10-27 23:40:07

Calliban,

I'm concerned, and I believe rightfully so, that during the course of this religious crusade to prevent humans from using hydrocarbon energy to improve their lives, that we not only end up murdering a bunch of poor people, but to add insult on top of the most extreme form of injury to humanity, we spoil the natural beauty of this planet by strip mining large swaths of it, to the point that it starts to look like the surface of the moon.

Why would that ever be better than using otherwise wasted heat from solar thermal / nuclear thermal / geothermal input power sources to produce the hydrocarbons that humanity finds so useful, and at the same time lock-up excess Carbon Dioxide in the form of storable petroleum products like Methane and Propane, so that humanity has a never-ending supply of recycled, abundant, and reliable hydrocarbon energy until the Sun incinerates this planet?

We can't do everything with solar, nuclear, or any other power source. That much should be obvious to anyone who is not willfully ignorant. Everything has its limits, apart from human ingenuity, resourcefulness, and our desire to self-improve. That will keep us going long after any lesser species would have given up, laid down, and surrendered to death. If we commit to working within the limits of our current technology sets, we can solve seemingly insurmountable problems. We may not solve them to the satisfaction of everyone, but the solution we end up with will be achievable, usable in operational practice, and certainly no worse than what we're presently doing.

SpaceNut · 2022-10-28 17:51:05

I sort of laugh whenever I hear zero emissions as we know that its false claiming from the start since the vehicles materials and even its construction was not zero and nor will its use.

Unless you are building by hand and using natural created power you are not even close to zero which is mechanical power.

kbd512 · 2022-10-29 02:47:01

SpaceNut,

If everyone knows that "zero emissions" is false advertising, then why are the zealots allowed to trot out this nonsense without more push-back?

SpaceNut · 2022-10-29 11:37:44

They are only looking at the use and not its build or how the energy that is used is created.

So how do we make materials for use to build with such that they are zero emission?

I can see it now a tree made into a car or truck cut by whittling it to shape or from an old mechanical sawmill that is water powered.
You can have one in antique or sports car model.

R.d7d6d621dd840002069af67b8d5d0890?rik=f8Fi49qPBveZOw&pid=ImgRaw&r=0

R.68dacc902291b3b1d410adb3d9ffa5e8?rik=oD4S2b%2bnz62Vfg&riu=http%3a%2f%2fwww.stanceiseverything.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2015%2f10%2fwoodgood3.jpg&ehk=iGQ7jCqYjEvPlRMM6PSIRNAXJyF8CXHKedAWR3ngJy8%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0

kbd512 · 2022-10-29 15:38:17

SpaceNut,

Why is nobody educating them on the error of their ways?

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-02-19 18:52:47

Thwaites Glacier is back in the news

Scientists: Antarctic's so-called "Doomsday Glacier" is in trouble, could collapse
https://www.cbsnews.com/atlanta/news/sc … -collapse/

They predicted Thwaites Ice Shelf, a floating ice shelf which braces and restrains the eastern portion of Thwaites, is likely to collapse within a decade from 2021. Thwaites Glacier, nicknamed the Doomsday Glacier, is an unusually broad and vast Antarctic glacier flowing into Pine Island Bay, part of the Amundsen Sea, east of Mount Murphy, on the Walgreen Coast of Marie Byrd Land. Its surface speeds exceed 2 kilometres (1.2 miles) per year near its grounding line. Its fastest-flowing grounded ice is centered between 50 and 100 kilometres (31 and 62 mi) east of Mount Murphy. Since the 1980s, the glacier had a net loss of over 600 billion tons of ice up to 2017. In 1967, the Advisory Committee on Antarctic Names named the glacier after Fredrik Thwaites a glacial geologist, geomorphologist and professor emeritus at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Its outflow and contribution to sea-level rise would accelerate substantially. In January 2019, NASA discovered an underwater cavity beneath the glacier, with an area two-thirds the size of Manhattan. The cavity formed mostly in the previous three years and is nearly 1,000 feet (305 m) tall, likely speeding up the glacier's decay. Thwaites currently contributes roughly 4% to global sea level rise.

Vid
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ht2FehDNF4

kbd512 · 2023-02-19 20:13:48

Mars_B4_Moon,

Thwaites contains ~285,000km^3 of ice above sea level. Worldwide, we consume 4,000km^3 of water per year, so that's about 71.25 years of consumption at current rates. However, I have a solution. We will have an all-you-can-drink sale on margaritas. Most of the world will be three sheets to the wind for the next human lifetime or so.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-03-28 09:33:35

Greenland’s Ice Sheet Is Close To A Melting Point Of No Return

https://spaceref.com/earth/greenlands-i … no-return/

an old newmars debate

'Nuclear, Pro & Con' or
Going Solar...the best solution for Mars.

and more research could have been put into Thorium or Cold-Fusion

https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=2425

https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=7762

https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=6054

https://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=5407

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-03-30 05:17:25

Antarctic ocean currents heading for collapse- report
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australi … gn=KARANGA

Rapidly melting Antarctic ice is causing a dramatic slowdown in deep ocean currents and could have a disastrous effect on the climate, a new report warns.

Deep ocean currents around Antarctica headed for collapse if carbon emissions continue at current rates
https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/scien … tudy-finds

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-04-01 11:55:14

NASA Uses 30-Year Satellite Record to Track and Project Rising Seas

https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasa-uses … ising-seas

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-04-09 08:41:37

A NASA instrument to provide unprecedented resolution of monitoring major air pollutants – down to four square miles – lifted off on its way to geostationary orbit at 12:30 a.m. EDT Friday. The Tropospheric Emissions: Monitoring of Pollution (TEMPO) instrument will improve life on Earth by revolutionizing the way scientists observe air quality from space.”

https://spaceref.com/earth/nasas-high-r … -launches/

kbd512 · 2023-04-12 15:51:17

How Climate Miscalculations Have Misdirected Policy, Lord Christopher Monckton

The bottom line is this:

All the spending on climate change, thus far, has resulted in spending $1,000,000,000 USD per 1/4,000,000°C of potentially prevented global warming.

I'm not an economist, but that seems like an astoundingly inefficient use of money to accomplish something that nobody will be able to measure 30 to 50 years from now.

Calliban · 2023-04-13 12:29:27

One could be forgiven for thinking that these investments, if we dare call them such, have nothing to do with preventing global warming. That was just the convenient theoretical problem that could be talked into a crisis, with the aim of justifying a predetermined ideologically attractive solution. The fact that these people spent years working against practical solutions like nuclear power, tells us that solving the global warming problem was never what any of this was about.

kbd512 · 2023-04-14 05:36:59

Calliban,

It's abundantly clear that none of the people pointing out the problems have anything approaching workable solutions, which is why they've spent a lot of money and accomplished less than nothing. Emissions increase every year, because none of these fanciful ideas are actual solutions to any problem except how to spend someone else's money.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2022-10-02 20:27:26

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#102 2022-10-03 00:11:22

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#103 2022-10-03 17:32:24

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#104 2022-10-05 04:46:44

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#105 2022-10-05 18:46:02

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#106 2022-10-09 17:39:47

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#107 2022-10-25 16:48:17

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#108 2022-10-26 16:46:46

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#109 2022-10-27 09:12:01

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#110 2022-10-27 14:53:02

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#111 2022-10-27 17:06:49

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#112 2022-10-27 23:40:07

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#113 2022-10-28 17:51:05

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#114 2022-10-29 02:47:01

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#115 2022-10-29 11:37:44

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#116 2022-10-29 15:38:17

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#117 2023-02-19 18:52:47

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#118 2023-02-19 20:13:48

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#119 2023-03-28 09:33:35

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#120 2023-03-30 05:17:25

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#121 2023-04-01 11:55:14

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#122 2023-04-09 08:41:37

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#123 2023-04-12 15:51:17

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#124 2023-04-13 12:29:27

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

#125 2023-04-14 05:36:59

Re: Climate Change - History and Forecasts

Board footer