Global Climate Changes
- Thread starter Caveman Catfan
- Start date
BBBBRRRRRRRRR
www.foxnews.com
Massive winter storm sweeping across northern US in coming days, dangerously cold temperatures expected | Fox News
Northern US temperatures will drop drastically into the Pacific Northwest first, then hit the northern Rocky Mountains and the Great Plains
The jet stream is powered by the temperature differentials in the equator and the arctic. As the arctic warms the jet streams weakens and dips south over the continental US and the cold surges south with it while warm air and water move up into the arctic via the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic.BBBBRRRRRRRRR
Massive winter storm sweeping across northern US in coming days, dangerously cold temperatures expected | Fox News
Northern US temperatures will drop drastically into the Pacific Northwest first, then hit the northern Rocky Mountains and the Great Plains
This is Senator Kennedy destroying climate "experts" in a Congressional Hearing.
"If we spend $50T to make the US carbon neutral by 2050, how much will that lower temperatures?"
"I don't know... it depends on China and India do...".
Lol... what a scam.
"If we spend $50T to make the US carbon neutral by 2050, how much will that lower temperatures?"
"I don't know... it depends on China and India do...".
Lol... what a scam.
That's a ridiculous line of questioning. Scientists don't know anything about costs, if they wanted to know the true costs/benefits of transition from coal to solar, wind or even nat-gas ask a friggin economist don't has a scientist. Of course their are capital costs associated with any start up energy system.
The capital costs of a wind farm are about $1.3 M per kw, compared to around $2 - $3M for a nuc plant but the operation costs are extremally different with a nuc plant being very high in comparison. Steam plants aren't much better.
There also economic benefits to newer forms of energy production, it isn't like the entire things is nothing more than a zero sum game with governments paying for it like Kennedy was implying. Geezzz
Economic benefits – Multiple Benefits of Energy Efficiency – Analysis - IEA
Multiple Benefits of Energy Efficiency - Analysis and key findings. A report by the International Energy Agency.
www.iea.org
It goes hand in hand. Why should we invest millions/billions when we don't know the end result? And please explain how an economist will know the true costs/benefits of a coal to solar transition?
Scientists don't know anything about costs? Then why are they concerned w/ how much funding they are going to get for a specific project? They know exactly how much they need for research.....they don't get a blank check.
Good grief.
Love senator Kennedy, he will go straight after it and stay on it. Great questions that the clown experts have to side step until he corners them and admit no and all of a sudden it’s up to China and India to comply. Carbon footprint climate scam
How much would it lower temperatures? Whatever the cost?That's a ridiculous line of questioning. Scientists don't know anything about costs, if they wanted to know the true costs/benefits of transition from coal to solar, wind or even nat-gas ask a friggin economist don't has a scientist. Of course their are capital costs associated with any start up energy system.
The capital costs of a wind farm are about $1.3 M per kw, compared to around $2 - $3M for a nuc plant but the operation costs are extremally different with a nuc plant being very high in comparison. Steam plants aren't much better.
There also economic benefits to newer forms of energy production, it isn't like the entire things is nothing more than a zero sum game with governments paying for it like Kennedy was implying. Geezzz
Economic benefits – Multiple Benefits of Energy Efficiency – Analysis - IEA
Multiple Benefits of Energy Efficiency - Analysis and key findings. A report by the International Energy Agency.
That is the ultimate question senator Kennedy was proposing. Not to mention it really isn't a problem to begin with. It's just like you dems with covid bullshit. There's never a tangible endgame, just throw more money at a "problem" and it was the wrong thing to do.
Could temperatures continue to rise even if the “one world” philosophy is accepted?
Truthful Answer: I don’t know.
False. That is completely appropriate for anyone who is advocating their positions. It is also appropriate to ask, will people suffer and die in the world as a result of the change you are advocating? You don’t get to be an “expert” and live in a vacuum when you are an advocate.That's a ridiculous line of questioning. Scientists don't know anything about costs, if they wanted to know the true costs/benefits of transition from coal to solar, wind or even nat-gas ask a friggin economist don't has a scientist. Of course their are capital costs associated with any start up energy system.
The capital costs of a wind farm are about $1.3 M per kw, compared to around $2 - $3M for a nuc plant but the operation costs are extremally different with a nuc plant being very high in comparison. Steam plants aren't much better.
There also economic benefits to newer forms of energy production, it isn't like the entire things is nothing more than a zero sum game with governments paying for it like Kennedy was implying. Geezzz
Economic benefits – Multiple Benefits of Energy Efficiency – Analysis - IEA
Multiple Benefits of Energy Efficiency - Analysis and key findings. A report by the International Energy Agency.
And, added, I suspect your cost projections are only short term. How long will a nuke continue to produce energy? How long before we have to replace the wind turbines? What is the cost of inconsistent production vs continuous production?
All valid questions.
Yes. And the cost is not only in money, but lives and livelihoods.
How many countries and people have benefited from the 15% greening of the world over the last 15 years?
First scientists were not advocating spending 50 Trillion Dollars on something, they were there to answer questions. Second the actual cost of transitioning to 100% renewable energy is unknown but it isn't like the government is going to write out a check for $50 T which is the picture Kennedy was adapting to paint.
In fact most of the investment in green energy comes from private investment into companies like First Solar and Plug Power not from the government. Companies that, btw produced 190,000 new jobs last year.
The fact is the actually cost vs return to the government is largely an unknown. One can certainly reasonably argue over the amount of assistance to boost green energy that is appropriate for the government but there is no certain way to put a price tag on all the capital costs minus the return to the economy in the way of jobs created, products sold especially exported, savings to companies and home owners on their utilities bills etc. not to mention the savings in health care costs from breathing cleaner air free of sulfur dioxide and other harmful chemicals produced by coal fired steam plants. If in fact there is a net cost, I would argue that it's just as likely there is a economic benefit. This would be a major challenge for a team of economists but is not task a for a scientist regardless of how smart they are.
This was a clever trap set by Kennedy and the scientist fell right into it. Now his message will be "they are asking us to spend $50T of your hard on money on green energy" which of course is a total lie.
Last edited:
Ofcourse, Deeeefense! Creating new green energy will create millions of jobs right here in the good ole USA. PLUG power is hiring its ass off right now, and offering salaries, that most of these bozos will never make in a lifetime of bitching and moaning.
Your advocacy has filtered your perception. First, the Goldman Sachs scientist understands cost-benefit analysis. They were there as advocates. You don’t get to advocate as an “expert” and then claim a lack of knowledge about the cost (economic and otherwise) of your advocacy. My gosh, you are advocating to a political body. It’s much more likely they did not want to admit the cost. No one believes they don’t have an idea.
I think Kennedy stated the cost fairly. Go back and listen. Philanthropy will not budget the change desired. The public will pay, one way or the other, for the change they seek.
And, if you cannot estimate the impact on the thing you claim to fear, this is simply a shot in the dark asking government to pick the winners over the losers without any tangible reason. That fails a cost-benefit analysis test. One of Kennedy’s obvious points.
The greening of the environment has a positive health benefit, as well. Right? If the fear does not exist, the damage done by changing quickly to unreliable sources of energy is certainly not worth it. If you claim the fear and cannot show how your solution actually resolves the threat, you have lost. Or, should lose.
All Kennedy did was expose even more how ridiculous the whole climate and green energy scam is. You had a “expert” whose life career was working in risk evaluation for Goldman Sachs, that’s all anyone needed to hear. Now he’s a green energy expert out of nowhere ? The next move from this “expert” will be “sell,sell,sell” 🍺
I stopped reading here, as it is obvious you haven't been paying attention to the blank checks being handed over to Ukraine, the ridiculous excess from the American Rescue Act, and many other worthless expenditures from this administration.
The biggest question that needs to get answered IMO is whether the 97% of greenhouse gasses that the planet produces offset any change in the 3% that the world controls. And of the 3% that the world controls we own about .8%. So why the government thinks it can essentially bankrupt the country (the money has to come from somewhere right) because of some false timeline that they have dreamt up vs allowing the private sector to continue to refine options until we get to the best available option.
EV's to me are absolutely not the answer, they are making headway in production but there is still a finite amount of material that can be consumed. The point Kennedy was trying to make is that the government very well COULD be on the hook for 50 trillion by the time its all said and done given there is very little infrastructure for any renewable at this point and to force feed it would require significantly more government investment. I believe the public/private investment is at 50/50 today even with the car companies sinking billions into EV, so think about the cost of a shift to other options if EV is determined to be a limited technology? Japan isn’t sold on EV as the best option, and neither are a lot of other countries, so until world governments get their respective shit together it is senseless in my eyes to commit to anything. It could become a ton of wasted money all for the sake of not really making a dent (as in less than .4% of the total gasses globally) in the grand scheme of things, and then having to reinvest in other technology on top of it because we rushed into this. The numbers make it seem pretty ignorant at this point in my opinion and the approach by this administration is horrifying to me.
When the experts say this this is a one world problem, we can see how some politicals grab the issue for purposes not related to global warming.
Yes of course, much like COVID there are some who buy in with the right intentions that just believe a little too easily, but many that are heavily involved have ulterior motives. Kind of sad but it's the way of the world these days.
"Its easier to fool someone than to convince them they've been fooled".
Mark Twain IIRC
Just this month, we have had 3 days in the top 17 of the hottest Lexington days ever recorded in February. By tomorrow it will be 4. This has never happened before in Lexington
No other year has more than 1 top 17 hottest days in February. Except 2018, which had 3 days in the top 17.
Feb 2023 will have 4 days crack the top 17
No other year has more than 1 top 17 hottest days in February. Except 2018, which had 3 days in the top 17.
Feb 2023 will have 4 days crack the top 17
The 3rd hottest was in 1932, 4th hottest was 1930, 5th was 1927. Not seeing your point even sheeple. Coldest ever was 1978 when we didn’t even have catalytic converters, 6th coldest 2015, 10th 2007. See the trend or complete lack of it!? You can stop point out completely useless facts now goober
C'mon man... just send in your extra tax money and everything will be fine...
| Rank | Temperature | Date |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 80 °F | February 20, 2018 |
| 1 | 80 °F | February 23, 1996 |
| 3 | 79 °F | February 24, 2017 |
| 4 | 76 °F | February 15, 1945 |
| 4 | 76 °F | February 26, 1944 |
| 6 | 75 °F | February 26, 1977 |
| 6 | 75 °F | February 29, 1972 |
| 6 | 75 °F | February 19, 1939 |
| 6 | 75 °F | February 10, 1932 |
| 6 | 75 °F | February 28, 1918 |
| 11 | 74 °F | February 9, 2023 |
| 11 | 74 °F | February 19, 2018 |
| 11 | 74 °F | February 25, 2000 |
| 11 | 74 °F | February 11, 1999 |
| 11 | 74 °F | February 15, 1954 |
| 11 | 74 °F | February 8, 1937 |
| 17 | 73 °F | February 15, 2023 |
| 17 | 73 °F | February 23, 2018 |
| 17 | 73 °F | February 26, 2000 |
| 17 | 73 °F | February 27, 1996 |
| 17 | 73 °F | February 29, 1976 |
| 17 | 73 °F | February 12, 1938 |
Stop it. Only the weather that supports the claim shall be reported!!
Please open a weather thread, because this is irrelevant.
Midwest, rather than global, warming. Meanwhile, BBRRRRRRRR
No, it won't.
Antarctic sea ice extent was 1.821 million km² on February 19, 2023, an all-time low in the NSIDC record.
Arctic sea ice extent was 14,271,000 km² on February 19, 2023, the third-lowest extent in the NSIDC record for the time of year.
Dire situation gets even more dire
Do you know what day in September/October 2023 when the irreversible effects begin ?No, it won't.
Antarctic sea ice extent was 1.821 million km² on February 19, 2023, an all-time low in the NSIDC record.
Arctic sea ice extent was 14,271,000 km² on February 19, 2023, the third-lowest extent in the NSIDC record for the time of year.
Dire situation gets even more dire
Irreversible effects have already begun that's why they call them feedback loops.
Thankfully, unlike climate science, outer space science is not completely settled.
www.colorado.edu
Just need to hope a group of wealthy politicians doesn’t find a way to monetize settled astronomy like they have with their settled global warming science.
Webb telescope spots super old, massive galaxies that shouldn’t exist
In a new study, CU Boulder astrophysicist Erica Nelson and her colleagues spotted six "fuzzy dots" of light in images from the James Webb Space Telescope. The candidate galaxies may have existed just 500 to 700 million years after the Big Bang and contain almost as many stars as the Milky Way.
Just need to hope a group of wealthy politicians doesn’t find a way to monetize settled astronomy like they have with their settled global warming science.
And we never will.
Highest February Temperatures in Lexington
www.extremeweatherwatch.com
Now a record 4 days in the top 19 hottest days in February.
| 1 | 80 °F | February 20, 2018 |
| 1 | 80 °F | February 23, 1996 |
| 3 | 79 °F | February 24, 2017 |
| 4 | 77 °F | February 22, 2023 |
| 5 | 76 °F | February 23, 2023 |
| 5 | 76 °F | February 15, 1945 |
| 5 | 76 °F | February 26, 1944 |
| 8 | 75 °F | February 26, 1977 |
| 8 | 75 °F | February 29, 1972 |
| 8 | 75 °F | February 19, 1939 |
| 8 | 75 °F | February 10, 1932 |
| 8 | 75 °F | February 28, 1918 |
| 13 | 74 °F | February 9, 2023 |
| 13 | 74 °F | February 19, 2018 |
| 13 | 74 °F | February 25, 2000 |
| 13 | 74 °F | February 11, 1999 |
| 13 | 74 °F | February 15, 1954 |
| 13 | 74 °F | February 8, 1937 |
| 19 | 73 °F | February 15, 2023 |
| 19 | 73 °F | February 23, 2018 |
| 19 | 73 °F | February 26, 2000 |
| 19 | 73 °F | February 27, 1996 |
| 19 | 73 °F | February 29, 1976 |
| 19 | 73 °F | February 12, 1938 |
Last edited:
