2 2
rushmc

There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

Funny enough, the link did go straight a reference to Al Gore and glaciers, a subject that ended with your statement that you'd rather have alpine fields than ice bulldozers.  So anyway, about what those Glaciers do, they actually are the water source needed for those alpine fields:

WHY ARE GLACIERS IMPORTANT?

Alpine glaciers, such as the glaciers in Glacier National Park, have been landscape features for thousands of years.  They play integral roles in the ecology of the region where they exist.  They are essentially frozen reservoirs of water which release cold water in late summer when streams might otherwise have low flows or no flows.  Adding water to streams and cooling streams is a function that several known species of aquatic insects, such as the meltwater and western glacier stoneflies, have come to rely upon.  Native fish species, such as cutthroat trout, have evolved in the presence of sustained cold water inputs from glaciers and are threatened by hybridization facilitated by warmer stream temperatures .

In some places, glacier meltwater provides drinking water for communities.  Glacier meltwater also contributes to agricultural practices and recreational uses like boating and fishing.  Local economies and livelihoods are connected to glacial input in these ways.   As glaciers disappear, there will be a reduction in water input at the same time the demand is going up.  Wildfire, and it’s multitude of devastating impacts ecologically and economically, is more likely when the landscape has less water.    

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2020 at 1:45 PM, DJL said:

Funny enough, the link did go straight a reference to Al Gore and glaciers, a subject that ended with your statement that you'd rather have alpine fields than ice bulldozers.  So anyway, about what those Glaciers do, they actually are the water source needed for those alpine fields:

WHY ARE GLACIERS IMPORTANT?

Alpine glaciers, such as the glaciers in Glacier National Park, have been landscape features for thousands of years.  They play integral roles in the ecology of the region where they exist.  They are essentially frozen reservoirs of water which release cold water in late summer when streams might otherwise have low flows or no flows.  Adding water to streams and cooling streams is a function that several known species of aquatic insects, such as the meltwater and western glacier stoneflies, have come to rely upon.  Native fish species, such as cutthroat trout, have evolved in the presence of sustained cold water inputs from glaciers and are threatened by hybridization facilitated by warmer stream temperatures .

In some places, glacier meltwater provides drinking water for communities.  Glacier meltwater also contributes to agricultural practices and recreational uses like boating and fishing.  Local economies and livelihoods are connected to glacial input in these ways.   As glaciers disappear, there will be a reduction in water input at the same time the demand is going up.  Wildfire, and it’s multitude of devastating impacts ecologically and economically, is more likely when the landscape has less water.    

 

I so so so much love Glacier Park.

I'm planning a camping trip up there as soon as I can schedule one - 

A week - if not 10 days - I need me some huckleberry!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

I so so so much love Glacier Park.

I'm planning a camping trip up there as soon as I can schedule one - 

A week - if not 10 days - I need me some huckleberry!!!

We got married there - on the shore of Lake McDonald.
Pity the glaciers are almost gone.

P1000478.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
3 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

I so so so much love Glacier Park.

I'm planning a camping trip up there as soon as I can schedule one - 

A week - if not 10 days - I need me some huckleberry!!!

 

56 minutes ago, kallend said:

We got married there - on the shore of Lake McDonald.
Pity the glaciers are almost gone.

Glacier National Park is like a Canadian national park W/O the mosquitoes.The complete absence of humming mosquitoes on the side of the tent, no howling wolves or coyotes. Made it difficult to fall asleep at night.

Edited by Phil1111

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

I don’t understand.  The experts said that the glaciers would all be gone by 2020, yet there are still twenty five named glaciers.xD

 

1 hour ago, DJL said:

Your're right.  You don't understand.

Doesn't understand and can't wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Phil1111 said:

Doesn't understand and can't wait.

 

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

yet there are still twenty five named glaciers.

Notice you had to edit after reading that many of the glaciers are no longer large enough to be called glaciers.

We even went over the glaciers thing like a month ago.  It reminds me of this: 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DJL said:
Quote

yet there are still twenty five named glaciers.

Notice you had to edit after reading that many of the glaciers are no longer large enough to be called glaciers.

 

That's especially funny in this thread!

BH over the next ten years or so:  "If there's climate change, how come there are still 25 named glaciers in Glacier National Park?  OK, 20.  Look, if you're going to be a dick about, there are definitely more than a dozen.  OK?  The bottom line is that not ALL the glaciers are gone yet!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Glaciers are still here, we have no more hurricanes, floods, droughts, or wildfires than in the past, record high food production, record high CO2, we even have record high temperatures (after “adjustments”) and everything is just fine.  We have a century’s worth of oil and natural gas, which is more than enough to tide us over until we have commercially viable nuclear fusion power.  Why are you guys unable to grasp these simple realities?

Edited by brenthutch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, brenthutch said:

until we have commercially viable nuclear fusion power

:rofl:

I worked in a company involved with ITER (you know the nuclear fusion test bed), and while it's very interesting technologically, we'd be at near 100% renewable tech WAY before it's commercially viable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would we want to blight the countryside with bird/bat slaughtering windmills, millions of acres of solar panels, millions of miles of additional transmission lines, and deal with the resulting environmental devastation,(remember these have to be disposed of and replaced every twenty years or so) when we could have a limitless supply of environmentally friendly fusion power?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
16 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Why would we want to blight the countryside with bird/bat slaughtering windmills, millions of acres of solar panels, millions of miles of additional transmission lines, and deal with the resulting environmental devastation,(remember these have to be disposed of and replaced every twenty years or so) when we could have a limitless supply of environmentally friendly fusion power?

Pie in the sky future answers that justify inaction today.

"fusion reactors that burn neutron-rich isotopes have byproducts that are anything but harmless: Energetic neutron streams comprise 80 percent of the fusion energy output of deuterium-tritium reactions and 35 percent of deuterium-deuterium reactions.

Now, an energy source consisting of 80 percent energetic neutron streams may be the perfect neutron source, but it’s truly bizarre that it would ever be hailed as the ideal electrical energy source. In fact, these neutron streams lead directly to four regrettable problems with nuclear energy: radiation damage to structures; radioactive waste; the need for biological shielding; and the potential for the production of weapons-grade plutonium 239—thus adding to the threat of nuclear weapons proliferation, not lessening it, as fusion proponents would have it.

In addition, if fusion reactors are indeed feasible—as assumed here—they would share some of the other serious problems that plague fission reactors, including tritium release, daunting coolant demands, and high operating costs. There will also be additional drawbacks that are unique to fusion devices: the use of a fuel (tritium) that is not found in nature and must be replenished by the reactor itself; and unavoidable on-site power drains that drastically reduce the electric power available for sale."

Gee I wonder why there isn't China, Russia and every other country working on this?

Oh, got the kick in the head, time to exit this equation.

Edited by Phil1111

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

when we could have a limitless supply of environmentally friendly fusion power

This shows that you know absolutely nothing about fusion power. Remember how you keep saying lithium batteries for electric cars are environmentally damaging? Fusion will probably need LOTS of lithium and make the electric car industry look tiny in comparison. Neutron activation of the rest of the reactor parts will be a big problem too.

One of the reasons why fusion won't be limitless nor cheap - it needs to pay the salaries of people like me. :tongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also note that while the lithium in electric car batteries can be recycled, it's "burned" and used up in a fusion reactor to generate more fuel. No recycling.

We'll need to mine the moon for Helium-3 to remove this dependence on lithium for fusion. (Neutron bombardment of Helium-3 generates tritium (H3), similarly 7-Lithium generates tritium via n,t reactions from neutron bombardment)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, brenthutch said:

 

 

11 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Why would we want to blight the countryside with bird/bat slaughtering windmills, millions of acres of solar panels, millions of miles of additional transmission lines, and deal with the resulting environmental devastation,(remember these have to be disposed of and replaced every twenty years or so) when we could have a limitless supply of environmentally friendly fusion power?

Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Lewis Strauss, 1954 :“It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter."

You are just as right as he was.  And in 70 years people like you will be saying the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, billvon said:

 

Atomic Energy Commission Chairman Lewis Strauss, 1954 :“It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy in their homes electrical energy too cheap to meter."

You are just as right as he was.  And in 70 years people like you will be saying the same thing.

Just like the folks who predicted the end of the glaciers in glacier national park, or the hurricanes, floods, droughts and wildfires brought on by higher CO2 levels.  BTW, it was the bed wetting, science denying lefty Luddites that hamstrung the nuclear industry.  Strauss was correct, his timing was just off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, kallend said:

I can remember in 1954 being told that fusion was the power source of the future.

It still is.

And likely still will be in 66 years time.

Well......we could just use the Sun for energy instead. I understand it produces a fair amount of under utilized power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Well......we could just use the Sun for energy instead.

And you know what?  I just checked - and the Sun is fusion powered!  His dreams will be answered by using solar-PV to extract energy from fusion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
49 minutes ago, billvon said:

And you know what?  I just checked - and the Sun is fusion powered!  His dreams will be answered by using solar-PV to extract energy from fusion.

 

Brilliant. In addition that fusion drives weather on earth, hence wind. So wind power is really fusion power! Weather patterns driven by that same fusion  results in evapotranspiration! i.e. hydro-power.

All of that can supply power to....a....Tesla! .....Damn Brent is a secret genius. No wonder Tesla is now $1544 a share.

Tesla has a market cap of $286 billion so Tesla could buy GM($34B), Ford($24B),Chrysler ($14B),MB ($39B), BMW($58B), VW($72B) and have $40 billion left over

 

Edited by Phil1111

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

2 2