Our Oceans are Under Attack

Can this coal plant stop climate change? | Christian Science Monitor

 

Seems there is an age divide too. Maybe when your generation dies...?? Sometimes you have to wait for the oldsters to die off before real progress can be made.

Proving the new politics of climate change | The Hill

 

Hi Imaginary Number,
I get notifications of new post to this subject tread, but have not had the time to follow it very closely in a while.

One notification of one of your postings started like this:

But when I clicked on it I was taken to several different pages,...none of which contained this posting?
Can you tell me what number the posting was?

BTW, I've found some of your postings very interesting, ...just need to find more time to read them. I'm glad we are off of the 'diet discussions'

 

Great to have the OP back in the conversation. That post was #734.

 

Bravo on the new clean coal technologies. We have lots of coal and a clean way to burn it results in more electric power for a power hungry population and industry.
We CAN solve our problems without draconian political measures.

As to us wise old greybeards dying off soon, don't hold your breath.
Isn't a tipping point eminent, once past we are all doomed with no chance to recover?
Can you afford to wait to win by attrition? Well. Anyway.
Because of inherited genes, I expect to easily reach 100.
Because of healthy living, and a strong constitution (I'm never ill) I expect to reach beyond 100.
Because of new medical discoveries in coming decades, I expect to maybe see 200th birthday or beyond.
I expect to be around another 140 years or more.
Sorry you were expecting relief, but not at all sorry to disappoint you.

Hooray we're off the diet postings.

 

Why do carbon sequestering power plants please you? Their only purpose is to help prevent Global Warming, which you do not believe is happening. Any CCS power plant will necessarily operate at a lower energy efficiency than a similar non-CCS plant. So they really don't address the problem of "more electric power for a power hungry population and industry."

At the risk of taking this thread off on another non-ocean tack...

As it turns out most of the medical advances which have resulted in prolonging our lives DO NOT prolong the healthy part of life (say, pre-75 years of age), but instead prolong the dying part of life (post-75 years of age).

Here is a provocative article on why we might not want to keep fighting for extending those last few miserable years of life.

Why I Hope to Die at 75 | The Atlantic

ps
Yob, if there were any way to collect I'd be willing to bet heavily you won't make it to 120 years old.

 

There is an old saying, Use it or Lose it.
I'm 66. Strong and healthy.
Both parents and 3 grandparents lived to nearly 100.
None died of old age. All died of accidents or catastrophic disease that is regularly curable now.
All were active and alert and happy to within a few weeks or hours of dying.
My dad was still putting in 60 hour weeks in his one man shop a week before he died of liver cancer, age 96. Couple years later they discovered treatment for liver cancer. We got the biopsy (taken when he fell ill last week of life), report back after he died.

Anyway, wish me luck.

I and most Americans are concerned about pollution.
Most of us think the notion that CO2, plants love it, is a pollutant is crazy.
Stay off the human CO2 train, you'll find lots of allies to clean up the planet.
Insist on AGW, you'll always be a minority, in USA anyway.

So clean coal power plants are more expensive to run.
Okay. When alternative sources of energy become cheaper than coal, we'll phase out the coal.
Meanwhile, keep the home fires burning, or am I mixing metaphors? You know what I mean.


When I die, I hope to go like grandpa. Peacefully in my sleep.
Not yelling and screaming like his passengers.

 

I'll reply in more detail later when I have more time and more space in my brain, but no Cheney was not alluding to climate change. I'd have to look it up, but offhand I'd say it was one of the statements made during the prelude to the second Iraq war. Given the content, that seems likely.

The article in question is basically about how various people approach risk assessment.

 

Ok, then I expect he meant immediate action was in order if we so much as suspected a terrorist had a weapon of mass destruction.
He just phrased it poorly as "1% chance"
Heck, I often can't clearly see what I'm saying because I get my own tongue wrapped around my eye teeth frequently.
My wife says I'm an amazingly agile limber old dude. I can get BOTH feet in my mouth.

 

Study Finds Earth’s Ocean Abyss Has Not Warmed | NASA

 

Interesting. But then this is just in too: The world is warming faster than we thought

The rest is on the link.

 

thanks imaginarynumber. and I praise the JPL scientists for honesty. It's a relief. And less a lonely feeling.
There are many factors to consider in the mystery of warming and climate change.
1. How important is CO2 to warming?
. ...a. Is there a saturation point of CO2, where diminishing returns take effect? Logic says yes.
.... b. Is the forcing mechanism between CO2 and water vapor offset by cooling effects of cloud cover? Evidence says yes.
. ...c. Perhaps CO2 isn't the bugaboo it's claimed to be? That argument has been made.
2. Is warming a bad thing? Is melting ice a bad thing?
....a. Doesn't appear to be for polar bears, at least not yet. Their population is growing.
... b. Longer growing seasons in higher latitudes were enjoyed during MWP. Could be again.
3. Considering the scarcity of hard information and clear understanding, precipitous action is: (elect one)
... a urgent
... b. uncalled for
... c. Likely more catastrophic than climate change consequences.
4. What should we be doing, if anything, while we sort out the details.


Big blank huh, but first order of business for a leader, when a new crew comes on board, is team building.
Nothing breeds trust, confidence and success, ...like success.
We need to start working together on mutually beneficial and agreed upon projects. Projects with a high probability of noticeable success.
Aboard a newly manned ship, earliest group project is normally cleaning. Making habitat sanitary, comfortable and livable. Easy success. Beneficial to all.
Then we begin to form relationships as shipmates, as small success builds upon small success. A sense of brotherhood develops. Military units understand. Loyalty and trust and got each other's back, combined courage in danger.

Suggest some projects that aren't politically polarized.
How about sweep the seas clean of garbage?
Imagine a line of small boats, yachts, large enough to stay at sea awhile, linked together with oil containment booms. Sweeping together in a line a mile or two long.
Running a grid pattern until an area is clear of debris.
Getting paid a small gratuity, greater than expenses, other boats taking their place when fresh water, fuel or groceries get low, on a waiting list arrangement.

 

Screw the climate models. They were deliberately skewed when invented.

 

It's hard to believe that posts 754 and 755 were written by the same person. Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde? It will be a full moon Wednesday morning.

 

You trust climate models? All the information I have is they were DESIGNED DEDICATED to AGW support.
that's not science. it's agenda. I don't trust them.
In the article they admit hard data for southern hemisphere is scarce and short term.
So obviously their "determination" heavily relies on climate models. Don't have anything else. Well, we have seen in the past how inaccurate and over reaching relying on models usually is.
Hence my suggestion, ignore (screw) the models. Wait till we get more real measurements. Might be just like the JPL discovery IN posted. Less than expected and an even greater mystery.