Maybe I could say something about this, but not on a short turnaround or even a foreseeable schedule.
I don't believe there is a simple or straightforward Reply message that would do justice to this Red v. Blue remark.
I know, not trying to be mean, but at least this is a bit more polite way of conceding. The answer to this is... two-fold... most Democrat "leadership" don't actually care about the environment, or whatever else it is that they say they want to solve. They only want power, and they want you to THINK they're solving these problems.
This is a relatively new phenomenon, because I don't think this was necessarily the case prior to 2000. I'd say the Democrat party has been heavily hijacked by foreign influence... the Republican part has as well, but no where near to the extent that it has on the left. I can't really say why, perhaps China, Russia, and the global oligarchs find that the left is more amenable to radical change. But in every city, and every state that Democrat rule resides... they are worse-off, year after year. You cannot show me a single Democrat city that's better today than it was 20 years ago. Consequently... every Republican city has improved.... **** , just look at Miami. The place is amazing.
So that's the first thing.
Second, modern Democrats are really, really bad at money-management. They don't understand human behavior, and think taxpayers are an unlimited resource. They allocate money towards never-ending problems that address the result, but never the solution. So there's never any money left to actually address things that maybe they should or need to. California is the worst... can you believe that California... a state that used to be the pinnacle of U.S. innovation, has stooped SO LOW that they now have to get nearly 20% of their electricity from a power plant in a 3rd world country? California does this... and that Mexican power comes from Coal.
One thing I like about the Biden and Democrat-backed Floating Offshore Wind Moonshot is that it opens up the panorama of big-time electricity from coastal waters offshore to California on the Pacific Coast, and Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Rhode Island on the Atlantic Seaboard.
That would be a lot of electricity and it would all be branded "Democrat Blue."
Offshore wind with fixed moorings for the wind turbines is already familiar territory.
Floating offshore wind, where the wind turbines are actually held up by the buoyancy of seawater, is more of a challenge, but it would be a gateway to more energy producing wind and more reliable energy producing wind.
It's a long game.
You can talk up "nukes" (fission reactors) all you want. I'm not standing in anyone's way, but for reasons beyond my control and even beyond my full understanding, it seems to me that it is still slow-going in terms of a nuclear fission renaissance.
I'm hopeful that the engineering and supply chain challenges of more offshore wind energy and floating offshore wind energy can be overcome, and that the new or expanded offshore installations can be constructed and maintained without creating signficant problems for marine life, the fishiing industry or maritime navigation.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 10-31-2023).]
One thing I like about the Biden and Democrat-backed Floating Offshore Wind Moonshot is that it opens up the panorama of big-time electricity from coastal waters offshore to California on the Pacific Coast, and Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and Rhode Island on the Atlantic Seaboard.
That would be a lot of electricity and it would all be branded "Democrat Blue."
Offshore wind with fixed moorings for the wind turbines is already familiar territory.
Floating offshore wind, where the wind turbines are actually held up by the buoyancy of seawater, is more of a challenge, but it would be a gateway to more energy producing wind and more reliable energy producing wind.
I'm hopeful that the engineering and supply chain challenges of more offshore wind energy and floating offshore wind energy can be overcome, and that the new or expanded offshore installations can be constructed and maintained without creating signficant problems for marine life, the fishiing industry or maritime navigation.
The only reason why they're doing offshore, is because of NIMBY... which is ridiculous.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: The only reason why they're doing offshore, is because of NIMBY... which is ridiculous.
I completely disagree with that.
Offshore wind is more reliable and less subject to the vagaries of weather and the highs and lows of the diurnal cycle, and floating offshore wind, which takes it farther offshore, is even MORE advantageous that way.
I'm all about MORE..! MORE is all I do!
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 10-31-2023).]
Offshore wind is more reliable and less subject to the vagaries of weather and the highs and lows of the diurnal cycle, and floating offshore wind, which takes it farther offshore, is even MORE advantageous that way.
I'm all about MORE..! MORE is all I do!
Honestly, you can disagree... but this is one of the reasons why it's being considered in the first place. Many of these smaller Democrat-run states... they aren't expansive like the mid-west, so to be fair, there isn't the amount of space to put these turbines like there are in Texas. Texas has been putting them on top of oil fields, which is both ironic, and kind of funny.
But NY does not want these windmills. They aren't silent, they make noise, and some people have a considerable intolerance to them (I think it's mostly mental, personally, but whatever). But the main reason why they're being considered off shore is because there's limited places where they can get approval (mostly because of NIMBY) to put them.
I don't have a problem with them off-shore (or on shore for that matter)... but there's also the NIMBY problem there too, so now they're being forced to put them even further out. They are sitting in salt-water, and the operational and maintenance costs, as well as the initial costs are exceptionally higher than they are compared to normal wind farms. I hate to be the bringer of bad news... but man... Rinse... these off-shore wind farms are a really bad investment. They require nearly twice the maintenance and are twice as expensive.
My own PERSONAL issue with both of these, is that ~85% of this is all made in China... so we're literally funding our Communist enemies. I would be willing to PAY MORE on my power bill if I knew these wind farms and solar farms were from equipment made in the United States.
Just when you thought offshore wind energy was "down for the count," Dominion Energy's Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (CVOW) project is greenlighted by the Biden administration.
This was just posted on YouTube.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-01-2023).]
Just when you thought offshore wind energy was "down for the count," Dominion Energy's Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind (CVOW) project is greenlighted by the Biden administration.
This was just posted on YouTube.
Look Rinse... you know I'm a fan of this technology... but I've said before that I take issue with the fact that all the money is going to China. We're funding our enemies... and I hope you can see that.
I just got back from the Orlando World Money Show... it's an annual investment show that I go to every year... and there's a lot of information that I take away from it. One of the things they talked about is that "green" investments have largely been subsidized by the government. But it's been a net-loss of an investment and many companies are cancelling a lot of their green energy projects.
Another thing they mentioned is that the United States will likely never recover it's oil energy production because most of the companies have moved elsewhere (to other countries). There's a new oil field that was discovered in Guyana (no, that's not in Africa... everyone always thinks this, haha) which is one of the largest sweet crude oil fields in the world. So Exxon and Chevron are going to be tapping that, which will provide a significant amount of international oil. They believe it will significantly affect OPEC's ability to control pricing. Unfortunately, that means that no one will bother drilling in the U.S. oil fields, except for the specific oils used for other products such as plastics or diesel, etc.
Anyway... I'm an engineer of a few different trades, the least of which though is mechanical engineering. I don't understand why they don't produce a mobile wind platform that can be anchored and has 4 posts. You can have 4 equal-sized blades (about half the size of one of those blades at the bottom, with a 5th large prop coming up from the middle raised above the other 4. As a mobile platform with actual lateral support, you could move these around pretty quickly and they'd be able to withstand hurricanes much easier with collapsible blades. We could build them at home, and use those off-shore, allowing us to move them based on the changing seasonal winds in the ocean.
Anyway... I'm an engineer of a few different trades, the least of which though is mechanical engineering. I don't understand why they don't produce a mobile wind platform that can be anchored and has 4 posts. You can have 4 equal-sized blades (about half the size of one of those blades at the bottom, with a 5th large prop coming up from the middle raised above the other 4. As a mobile platform with actual lateral support, you could move these around pretty quickly and they'd be able to withstand hurricanes much easier with collapsible blades. We could build them at home, and use those off-shore, allowing us to move them based on the changing seasonal winds in the ocean.
That doesn't sound like a practical idea, at all.
Move them to follow the seasonal winds? That's a lot of undersea infrastructure to get the electricity to shore, and a lot of energy and manpower to effect the relocation.
I would like to see tidal powered generation of electricity.
Move them to follow the seasonal winds? That's a lot of undersea infrastructure to get the electricity to shore, and a lot of energy and manpower to effect the relocation.
I would like to see tidal powered generation of electricity.
TIDAL WILL WORK IN VERY FEW PLACES
requires hi flow and locations for structures = BIG BUCKS
WILL NOT WORK IN FLA
gulf stream turbines maybe but not tide flow intermittent peak and slack times with tides so not constant consistent power changes all the time in time and peaks
Move them to follow the seasonal winds? That's a lot of undersea infrastructure to get the electricity to shore, and a lot of energy and manpower to effect the relocation.
I would like to see tidal powered generation of electricity.
"That's a lot of undersea infrastructure to get the electricity to shore"
We're talking about water wind power, so it's the same regardless. I think wind farms on the water is stupid entirely... but if you're going to do it, my idea is absolutely better than having a single one. The infrastructure to get it to shore is the same, at least with my idea you have 5 wind turbines, not 1.
I think I may have misunderstood your use of "move them around".
I thought you were referring to the location, you meant rotating the turbine orientation as the wind changes direction.
My bad.
Well, to an extent, the undersea cable will already have to exist... but I was thinking more like moving it maybe on the other side of a bay, or a hundred feet or so... not vast expanses. Whenever there's a wind turbine installed, there's always a geotechnical survey done to determine efficiency and location... so this would need to be done for this as well, finding a spot where it can attract the wind throughout the year requiring only minor placement change. For example, if there is a cliff that during one part of the year blocks substantial northern winds, you can move the station a little further out. This is something that's already done for ocean-based wind farms already... so not particularly new.
It's also something they have to consider for land-based wind farms as well.. ensuring that year-round it's in the best spot to maintain a level of consistency. On the water, you can actually maximize this by moving the wind turbine to a different location (as I said though, not vast distances).
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I don't understand why they don't produce a mobile wind platform that can be anchored and has 4 posts. You can have 4 equal-sized blades (about half the size of one of those blades at the bottom, with a 5th large prop coming up from the middle raised above the other 4. As a mobile platform with actual lateral support, you could move these around pretty quickly and they'd be able to withstand hurricanes much easier with collapsible blades. We could build them at home, and use those off-shore, allowing us to move them based on the changing seasonal winds in the ocean.
Todd, that has been done. Adapted from oil / gas drilling mobile platforms, [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackup_rig] Jackup platforms can enable wind fans.
Todd, that has been done. Adapted from oil / gas drilling mobile platforms, [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackup_rig] Jackup platforms can enable wind fans.
About the needed electrical feed to your house. They have extension cords which can be connected to the main feed to land. Just as oil / gas pipelines. Even railroad "spurs".
About the needed electrical feed to your house. They have extension cords which can be connected to the main feed to land. Just as oil / gas pipelines. Even railroad "spurs".
one of the BIG PROBLEMS WITH WIND
UTILITY CORPrats do not want to fund the '' extension cords '' so stall and make projects wait for many years to be hooked up likely at BIG OIL'S REQUEST AS MORE WIND MEANS LESS OIL SALES
"Fact check: Trump falsely claims California had ‘blackouts all over the place this summer’" Daniel Dale and Ella Nilsen for CNN; November 4, 2023. https://www.cnn.com/2023/11...city-grid/index.html
Trump's latest gaslighting of Americans on energy and climate-related issues is analyzed in this brief CNN news report.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-05-2023).]
When it comes to science, never believe what any leftists say. Their rabid hate and hysterica clouds their judgement, and on top of that being low information simps, they have nothing to offer to the conversation on Climate Change.
Remember them during Covid? Yeah, they will always be wrong, hateful and vindictive. They are not good people. They only put on a facade (known as virtue signalling), but it's just psychopathic and narrasitic behavior.
[This message has been edited by Wichita (edited 11-06-2023).]
When it comes to science, never believe what any leftists say. Their rabid hate and hysterica clouds their judgement, and on top of that being low information simps, they have nothing to offer to the conversation on Climate Change.
Remember them during Covid? Yeah, they will always be wrong, hateful and vindictive. They are not good people. They only put on a facade (known as virtue signalling), but it's just psychopathic and narrasitic behavior.
From the same forum member who was duped by this fraudulent claim about sea levels!
CLICK FOR FULL SIZE
A "leftist" is anyone or anything Wichita wants it to be. He's proved it with hundreds of unhinged remarks using—misusing, for the most part—the word "leftist." Like this unhinged remark.
He doesn't know anything about leftists or science... he's the last person on earth that anyone should take seriously about leftists and science.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-09-2023).]
Originally posted by someone with more sense than Wichita:
When it comes to anything that requires some thought, never believe what Wichita says. His rabid hate and hysterica clouds his judgement, and on top of being a low information simp, he has nothing to offer to the conversation on PFF.
Remember him during Covid? Yeah, he will always be wrong, hateful and vindictive. He's not good people. He puts on a facade (known as The Gorn), but it's really just psychopathic and narcissistic behavior.
[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 11-07-2023).]
"Drought that has hammered Syria, Iraq and Iran was exacerbated by climate change"
quote
Scientists with the World Weather Attribution group found that extreme temperatures dramatically increased the likelihood of the drought that has fueled a humanitarian crisis.
"Red hot October almost guarantees 2023 will be the hottest year on record" [QUOTE]October was a whopping 0.4 degrees Celsius (0.7 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the previous record for the month in 2019.
"Drought that has hammered Syria, Iraq and Iran was exacerbated by climate change"
quote
Scientists with the World Weather Attribution group found that extreme temperatures dramatically increased the likelihood of the drought that has fueled a humanitarian crisis.
"Humanity just lived through the hottest 12 months in at least 125,000 years"
Based on what paleoclimatology researchers have reconstructed about the earth's climate, using evidence frozen within glaciers and polar ice sheets, marine sediments, tree ring growth analysis, fossils and the like.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: What caused the previous hottest 12 months 125,000 years ago?
Here's a clue:
quote
The Last Interglacial... [from 130,000 to 115,000 years ago] characterized by a climate warmer than today, with a higher global sea level and smaller ice-sheets. It is regarded as an important period for investigating the ice-sheet sensitivity to climate change in a global warming scenario. . . .
Although the [Last Interglacial] was caused by changes in the Earth’s orbital configuration, and the predicted [current] global warming is a response to greenhouse gas emissions . . .
This writer says that it was changes in the Earth's orbit that brought about the warmer climate of the Last Interglacial. Not random changes, but periodic changes or cycles that astronomers have figured out. These periodic changes in the Earth's orbit cause changes in the distribution of sunlight across the planet's surface, and that is what caused the warmer climate of the Last Interglacial.
The consensus among climate researchers is that these orbital parameters are not a significant factor that could explain any part of the recent and ongoing warming of the planet since the start of the Industrial Revolution. The time scales of these orbital cycles are measured in tens of thousands of years, so the orbital parameters have not changed enough since the start of the Industrial Revolution to have made any difference.
What has changed since the start of the Industrial Revolution?
This writer says that it was changes in the Earth's orbit that brought about the warmer climate of the Last Interglacial. Not random changes, but periodic changes or cycles that astronomers have figured out. These periodic changes in the Earth's orbit cause changes in the distribution of sunlight across the planet's surface, and that is what caused the warmer climate of the Last Interglacial.
I had heard that this exact same cycle continues. Are you saying Earth's cycle is non-cyclical and did something weird once?
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I had heard that this exact same cycle continues. Are you saying Earth's cycle is non-cyclical and did something weird once?
This writer says that it was changes in the Earth's orbit that brought about the warmer climate of the Last Interglacial.
(snip)
What (else) has changed since the start of the Industrial Revolution?
(snip)
Human greenhouse gas emissions.
NOTE - I edited the quote to be more inclusive. The quote, as originally typed, seemed so.....one-sided, even exclusionary.
Anyway...
Has anyone seen any research on the shifting of magnetic North, it's relationship to the orientation of the planets' core and geomagnetic field and how that ties in to climatic response?
Curious, I've not thought to investigate the topic. Maybe I'll get to it.
Just a thought....
Science continues to question, re-evaluate conclusions and seek answers. The new answers sometimes are in conflict with accepted thought.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: So then why would you not think that something that's cyclical, wouldn't still be doing what it's done throughout Earth's history, also today?
Scientists have examined all kinds of influences on the earth's climate, including these orbital cycles.
Human greenhouse gas emissions are the only credible explanation for the amount of warming that has occurred in the relatively short period of about 200 years since industrialization and the concomitant scaling up of greenhouse gas emitting fossil fuels.
It's not just a correlation between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. It's been tested in laboratory experiments. It's been confirmed in the atmosphere with precision measuring instruments. It's explained in terms of quantum mechanics, involving the interactions between the energy of sunlight and the chemical bonds that connect the atoms in greenhouse gas molecules. It's been translated into numbers that track with computer simulations of the sunlight and atmosphere.
There are other factors that are part of the explanation of why 2023, as it nears its end, is going to be recorded as the hottest year in the last 125,000 or so years, but the warming effect of greenhouse gases outweighs all the other factors in terms of numerical significance. Greenhouse gases are even farther above the other warming factors than Trump is ahead of the other Republican candidates in the polls.
There's clear evidence that it is humans and not Mother Nature that has been pushing up the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-10-2023).]
Scientists have examined all kinds of influences on the earth's climate, including these orbital cycles.
Human greenhouse gas emissions are the only credible explanation for the amount of warming that has occurred in the relatively short period of about 200 years since industrialization and the concomitant scaling up of greenhouse gas emitting fossil fuels.
It's not just a correlation between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. It's been tested in laboratory experiments. It's been confirmed in the atmosphere with precision measuring instruments. It's explained in terms of quantum mechanics, involving the interactions between the energy of sunlight and the chemical bonds that connect the atoms in greenhouse gas molecules. It's been translated into numbers that track with computer simulations of the sunlight and atmosphere.
There are other factors that are part of the explanation of why 2023, as it nears its end, is going to be recorded as the hottest year in the last 125,000 or so years, but the warming effect of greenhouse gases outweighs all the other factors in terms of numerical significance. Greenhouse gases are even farther above the other warming factors than Trump is ahead of the other Republican candidates in the polls.
There's clear evidence that it is humans and not Mother Nature that has been pushing up the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
But, we only have ~150 years of data... and with the exception of the last ~25 years of it... most of it has been fairly limited. As I've said in the past, that's an absurdly small window to put so much focus and emphasis on. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm also not convinced.
We have about 150 years of systematic weather and temperature records.
Paleoclimatology is the science that reconstructs the earth's previous climate regimes, using evidence frozen within glaciers and polar ice sheets, marine sediments, differentiation of fossil species—diatoms and fossilized plant pollen come to mind—and tree ring growth analysis and the like. Even historical accounts for the more recent periods.
Paleoclimatology is what informs climate scientists to assert with confidence that 2023 will be recorded as the warmest-ever year since the warmer climate regime of the Last Interglacial. That's where this figure of 125,000 years comes from.
During the temperature extremes that were common across the U.S., from June through September, there's no doubt that people were greeting their neighbors on the street or across the fence with "Wow. Hot enough for you? It hasn't been this hot since 125,000 years ago." You can bank on it.
October 2023 has been recorded as the overall warmest October on record, breaking the previous record from October 2019.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 11-10-2023).]
October 2023 has been recorded as the overall warmest October on record, breaking the previous record from October 2019.
Again, I say... this is a matter of statistical math.
If you only have 150 years (realistically) of data on a data set that encompasses over 4 billion years old... you're going to be constantly breaking records. Mathematically, this is what is called a Sigmoid curve...
Essentially... in the beginning of data collection (which is where we are now), the changes and fluctuations are going to be exponential. This means that you can expect the records to change radically until the dataset is normalized.
Once you reach a common baseline... (which would take you at least 2 billion years), only then would you start to see a decline in the constant delta of weather records. Eventually, you'll get to the point where all records that could occur within the conceivable range, have already occured... and you're unlikely to ever break another record because every day would have had its coldest and hottest temperature set.
... I know this doesn't jive with what you want to believe... but I keep emphasizing it because it speaks to the absolute ridiculousness of what were expected to believe based on a mere 150 years of data from a 4 billion year-old planet.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Again, I say... this is a matter of statistical math. If you only have 150 years (realistically) of data on a data set that encompasses over 4 billion years old... you're going to be constantly breaking records. Mathematically, this is what is called a Sigmoid curve... Essentially... in the beginning of data collection (which is where we are now), the changes and fluctuations are going to be exponential. This means that you can expect the records to change radically until the dataset is normalized.
Once you reach a common baseline... (which would take you at least 2 billion years), only then would you start to see a decline in the constant delta of weather records. Eventually, you'll get to the point where all records that could occur within the conceivable range, have already occured... and you're unlikely to ever break another record because every day would have had its coldest and hottest temperature set.
... I know this doesn't jive with what you want to believe... but I keep emphasizing it because it speaks to the absolute ridiculousness of what were expected to believe based on a mere 150 years of data from a 4 billion year-old planet.
You are not just "way out in left field" on this... you're on Waveland Avenue!
It's only the more recent periods of Earth's history that are relevant. If you try to go too far back in time, you are looking at a planet with major differences in the configuration of its land masses and oceans, because of plate tectonics and continental drift... an atmosphere that had considerably more or less oxygen, depending on what period you're in.... periods before there were flowering plants and before there was any animal life on land, which would greatly affect the Carbon Cycle... periods when the carbon dioxide and other kinds of gases and aerosols in the atmosphere from volcanic activity was 10 or even 100 times more than anything that overlaps with the most recent million or so years that takes us back to our earliest human ancestors... yada yada yada.
So you can't look back all that far into Earth's distant history to do climate comparisons, because of "apples and oranges."
The Last Interglacial, from 130,000 to 115,000 years ago, is about as far back in the Earth's history as you can go, before you start encountering serious "apples and oranges."
You are not thinking about this from a human perspective. Scientists are not saying that there won't be a time in the future when the climate becomes much warmer (or colder) than what we're accustomed to. Scientists are saying that if we leave it up to Mother Nature, that kind of change is unlikely for several more thousands of years. But if we do not address the human-attributable greenhouse gas concerns, that kind of change will be upon us much sooner... very possibly by year 2100, if not before.
Statistically, it's being argued that 2023 is the "game changer" that is going to demarcate the beginning of a radically warmer climate regime, unless human greenhouse gas emissions are seriously and rapidly curtailed. But I doubt that can actually be achieved, considering how much additional fossil fuel production is already in the works. So the climate "dice" are already being rolled, regardless of what people of my "ilk" like to think about it.
One of the more ironic possibilities is that continued, greenhouse gas-driven global warming will set off a chain of events that will shut down the Atlantic Ocean Meridional Current, which transports warm ocean water from the equatorial regions to the northern latitudes where it acts like a heating system for most of Europe. That could trigger the next Ice Age, almost before we could blink.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-21-2023).]
