Send a Message
to HomoSapiensLaptopicus

Comments

508

Joined

Jan 15, 2013

HomoSapiensLaptopicus Profile

Recent Posts

Global Warming

Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leavin...

Actually, we SHOULD be cooling now given the deep solar minimum in 2009 (& the expected long solar cycle now, before cycling back to solar max sometime after 2021), Chinese pollution releasing reflective aerosols, & La Niņa conditions. But we're not cooling; at MOST we're continuing to warm, but at less statistically significant rates. The sun & El Niņo WILL cycle back, & warming will be faster than ever. The Chinese are preparing to pass anti-pollution laws; their party leaders have to try to breathe the air in Beijing also, after all. Aerosols will decline & warming will speed up, just like what happened to us in the 1970s after we passed anti-pollution laws. So the people who are arguing now that "warming has stopped" are just deluding themselves, & trying to delude the rest of us. It will only work on the gullible.  (Apr 16, 2013 | post #35176)

Global Warming

Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

LIES- Neither. Actually, we SHOULD be cooling now given the deep solar minimum in 2009 (& the expected long solar cycle now, before cycling back to solar max in the 2020s), Chinese pollution releasing reflective aerosols, & La Niņa conditions. But we're not cooling; at MOST we're continuing to warm, but at less statistically significant rates. The sun & El Niņo WILL cycle back, & warming will be faster than ever. The Chinese are preparing to pass anti-pollution laws; their party leaders have to try to breathe the air in Beijing also, after all. Aerosols will decline & warming will speed up, just like what happened to us in the 1970s after we passed anti-pollution laws. So the people who are arguing now that "warming has stopped" are just deluding themselves, & trying to delude the rest of us. It will only work on the gullible.  (Apr 16, 2013 | post #25134)

Global Warming

Global Warming Standup Comedy

You can repeat your nonsense a hundred thousand times, but that doesn't make it true. The only "new environments" we'll have will involve devastation of our current ones. Droughts, floods, rising sea level. They'll cost MONEY - a LOT of it. Remember, YOU & your denier cronies are the ones who are changing the atmosphere the most, & want to change it a lot more. It's up to YOU to prove that it won't be harmful. But I know you can't give in or they won't pay you any more. After all, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it!" --Upton Sinclair  (Apr 13, 2013 | post #2729)

Global Warming

Global Warming Standup Comedy

No, because personally I'll probably be dead long before the worst consequences occur. I just don't want to further burden our progeny with an irrevocably damaged world. Continuing to emit excessive CO2 now is a lot like adding to the national debt. We spend money now expecting people in the future to pay it back, just as we emit CO2 now expecting people in the future to remove it. The costs of AGW/CC are likely to be orders of magnitude larger than the US national debt, however.  (Apr 13, 2013 | post #2727)

Global Warming

Who still takes global warming seriously?

Excellent series of posts, even if you "borrowed " some of the arguments, LOL. Seven of the ten largest companies in the world (by revenue) are oil companies; the others are a utility, an auto manufacturer & WalMart. http://money.cnn.c om/magazines/fortu ne/global500/2012/ full_list/ This doesn't even count the private companies (e.g. Koch Industries) or the countries that behave like oil companies (e.g. Kuwait ETC). There are people with staggering, almost incalculable wealth & power who have profound financial interests in AGW/CC denial. They will do almost anything to deny climate change & delay mitigation as long as possible. This is not even a question. The ONLY conspiracy is by the fossil fuels industries & their cronies to deny acientific reality. We even have some of their paid shills on this forum. http://en.wikipedi a.org/wiki/Global_ warming_conspiracy _theory#Countercla ims_of_a_conspirac y_to_undermine_cli mate_science  (Apr 13, 2013 | post #31967)

Global Warming

Global Warming Standup Comedy

The problem is that there are major delays & latencies built into the system. If we somehow magically stopped emitting CO2 now & stabilized it at ~400 PPM, warming would continue for decades, if not centuries. About half of a sudden bolus of CO2 in the atmosphere (which is essentially what we're doing geologically) is gone in a few decades, but nearly 20% is still there 500 years later, causing warming. We've probably already built in a few meters of sea level rise, it'll just take a few centuries to happen. We are at the beginning of a slow-moving catastrophe, but it's not obvious at all because of the delays. Once catastrophic changes get going, though, it'll be very hard to stop them. Mitigation of AGW/CC will be FAR less expensive than not mitigating it.  (Apr 7, 2013 | post #2718)

Global Warming

Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leavin...

The problem is that chemical rockets always use very cold propellants like liquid oxygen or hydrogen, etc. Ice always forms on the outsides of propellant tanks, & since launches are always violent, it always breaks off during early flight. The crew module should never, EVER have been mounted alongside propellant tanks. The Russians realized this & couldn't understand why the Americans did it. A Columbia-type disaster was guaranteed the minute they made that stupid decision. Incautious maintenance may have contributed to the Challenger disaster, but again, the 2 O-ring design was probably inadequate all along. Perhaps the Russian rocket designer you're referring to is Sergei Korolev, 1907-1966. He was indeed a genius.  (Apr 3, 2013 | post #34912)

Global Warming

Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

The "Goldilocks " reference means we need climatic conditions on earth to be "just right," dimwit. We & the dinosaurs both need/needed "just right" conditions, but "just right" for the dinosaurs was very, VERY different from "just right" for us. The dinosaurs had much higher CO2 levels, temperatures & sea levels than we need. Our civilization is adapted to Holocene climate, & we are now changing the climate into something very, very different. We are doing so at our peril. But you & your ilk want to go right on changing the atmosphere, & the climate, without regard for the rest of us.  (Apr 3, 2013 | post #24944)

Global Warming

Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leavin...

No, we turned over transport to & from LEO (low earth orbit) to the PRIVATE SECTOR. I thought conservatives liked the private sector. The Space Shuttle was a bad vehicle from the start. It was poorly designed & extremely dangerous, as we found out the hard way. Good riddance. We are considerably better off now. Elon Musk will succeed.  (Apr 3, 2013 | post #34897)

Global Warming

Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leavin...

Fundamentally, I don't disagree with you. I've always said we need to focus on conservation & renewables at this time. Remember, 3 Mile Island, though it was expensive, relased virtually no radiation & caused no deaths. Chernobyl & Fukushima were genuinely dangerous to humans, but not TMI. Newer reactors, including fast neutron uranium & liquid salt thorium, release MUCH less waste that is dangerous for a much, MUCH shorter time. This really does dramatically reduce the waste problem. Fast neutron reactors can even burn most of what we now call "waste." I'm not sure that nuclear is EVER cheap. There are environmental impacts, long construction times, decommissioning, etc. Utilities don't want to commit to them now because they don't know what the market will be in 20 years. BTW, New Orleans is already gone. Lots of other areas are in deep trouble, including Norfolk & Miami. Multiple California cities are at some risk, but there are lots of hills. The Central Valley, OTOH, currently very productive farmland, could all be under water in the future.  (Apr 3, 2013 | post #34894)

Global Warming

Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leavin...

More equine excrement from a deniers' organization. There's a LOT of oil money available, folks! Grab some! All you have to do is lie thru your teeth & forget about how much your progeny, should you have any, will DESPISE you. Sweet.  (Apr 2, 2013 | post #34879)

Global Warming

Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leavin...

OOPS... ka-BOOM! LOL  (Apr 2, 2013 | post #34875)

Global Warming

Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say

No, B_Gone, your words are disguised as science to fool the masses. The richest industry in the world has profound financial interest in AGW/CC denial, & you have taken advantage of that. After all, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it!" --Upton Sinclair  (Apr 2, 2013 | post #24939)

Global Warming

Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leavin...

How cheap is that? It's a LOT cheaper than having New York City inundated by the sea. How much is Boston worth? Providence? Washington DC? How about the entire Florida peninsula? The consequences & costs of emitting carbon into the atmosphere will be almost incaluculably expensive. They dwarf EVERYTHING else. Like I said, nuclear would not be my 1st option, but it's certainly preferable to continuing to burn fossil fuels without restraint or carbon sequestration. If we could develop fuels that aren't from FFs, that would be another reasonable alternative.  (Apr 2, 2013 | post #34873)

Global Warming

Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leavin...

Yes, nuclear technology is expensive & dangerous, & what you say is exactly right. It's also carbon-free once you get past construction, mining & transportation, however. Newer generation plants, whether fast neutron uranium or liquid salt thorium, have much less waste that is radioactive for a MUCH shorter period of time, so at least that problem is more manageable now. I've always recommended conservation & green power 1st, as much as possible, but when the sun doesn't shine & the wind doesn't blow, for some areas nuclear might be the best carbon-free option to take up the slack. That's just reality. If reliable carbon sequestration technology could be developed, perhaps fossil fuels could be burned safely, & nuclear might not be necessary.  (Apr 2, 2013 | post #34872)