Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Progress has been made. Still need to do more but catastrophe at least for much of the global west can be averted (although the politics of resources, economics, and mass migration/displacement will remain a wild card).

A very thorough article.

Change is universal.

But we are getting a clearer map of climate change, and however intimidating it looks, that new world must be made navigable — through action to limit the damage and adaptation to defend what can’t be stopped. At four degrees, the impacts of warming appeared overwhelming, but at two degrees, the impacts would not be the whole of our human fate, only the landscape on which a new future will be built.

Normalization is a form of adaptation, too, however cruel and unfortunate a form it may appear in theory or ahead of time. Indeed, already we can say a given heat wave was made 30 times more likely by climate change, or that it was a few degrees hotter than it would have been without climate change, and both would be true. We’ll be able to talk about the contributions of warming to disasters that buckle whole nations, as the recent monsoon flooding in Pakistan has, or about the human contributions to such vulnerability. And as we do today, we will often reach for the past when trying to judge the present, reckoning with how the world got where it is and who was responsible and whether the result of the fight against warming counts as progress or failure or both. History is our handiest counterfactual, however poor a standard it sets for a world that could have been much better still. “We’ve come a long way, and we’ve still got a long way to go,” says Hayhoe, the Canadian scientist, comparing the world’s progress to a long hike. “We’re halfway there. Look at the great view behind you. We actually made it up halfway, and it was a hard slog. So take a breather, pat yourself on the back, but then look up — that’s where we have to go. So let’s keep on going.”

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... world.html

kalm wrote: ↑Mon Nov 07, 2022 8:47 am Progress has been made. Still need to do more but catastrophe at least for much of the global west can be averted (although the politics of resources, economics, and mass migration/displacement will remain a wild card).

A very thorough article.

Change is universal.

But we are getting a clearer map of climate change, and however intimidating it looks, that new world must be made navigable — through action to limit the damage and adaptation to defend what can’t be stopped. At four degrees, the impacts of warming appeared overwhelming, but at two degrees, the impacts would not be the whole of our human fate, only the landscape on which a new future will be built.

Normalization is a form of adaptation, too, however cruel and unfortunate a form it may appear in theory or ahead of time. Indeed, already we can say a given heat wave was made 30 times more likely by climate change, or that it was a few degrees hotter than it would have been without climate change, and both would be true. We’ll be able to talk about the contributions of warming to disasters that buckle whole nations, as the recent monsoon flooding in Pakistan has, or about the human contributions to such vulnerability. And as we do today, we will often reach for the past when trying to judge the present, reckoning with how the world got where it is and who was responsible and whether the result of the fight against warming counts as progress or failure or both. History is our handiest counterfactual, however poor a standard it sets for a world that could have been much better still. “We’ve come a long way, and we’ve still got a long way to go,” says Hayhoe, the Canadian scientist, comparing the world’s progress to a long hike. “We’re halfway there. Look at the great view behind you. We actually made it up halfway, and it was a hard slog. So take a breather, pat yourself on the back, but then look up — that’s where we have to go. So let’s keep on going.”

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/202 ... world.html

There should be some form of public service related to climate change - we have hundreds of mothballed naval vessels that could be repurposed for removing plastic from the oceans, a new version of the CCC for restoring forest/saving coastline/waterways....

houndawg wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 11:17 am

kalm wrote: ↑Mon Nov 07, 2022 8:47 am Progress has been made. Still need to do more but catastrophe at least for much of the global west can be averted (although the politics of resources, economics, and mass migration/displacement will remain a wild card).

A very thorough article.

Change is universal.

There should be some form of public service related to climate change - we have hundreds of mothballed naval vessels that could be repurposed for removing plastic from the oceans, a new version of the CCC for restoring forest/saving coastline/waterways....

Not a bad idea per se, but what powers the propulsion on those mothballed ships? If it was nuclear I imagine that has been stripped out (even if it wasn't, how many qualified nuclear engineers do we have who can operate these?), and if it wasn't then whatever we'd burn to move the ships would far outweigh the environmental benefits of the plastic removing cruise.

And it should be pointed out the progress is made by systemic changes and not by the misanthropes and luddites and extinction rebellion and back-to-nature kooks.

What a bunch of drivel. Lots of buzzwords about equity, reparations, etc. Nothing about China and India building coal plants like crazy to provide power to their booming populations. Nothing about how the Paris Accord lets China and India avoid doing anything by tying emissions to GDP. A ton of CO2 is a ton of CO2 but as long as their GDP grows they can emit more CO2. The author also hides behind renewable being the cheapest source of energy. That can be true but energy (kWh) is only one component of power supply. Generation capacity (kW) is also part of it. The kW part is having generators available. You don't always have wind/sun so for a true cost you have to factor in the cost of fossil fuel plant to back it up. Changes the math in a hurry.

My personal favorite is this line, The International Energy Agency recently predicted that solar power would become “the cheapest source of electricity in history." Sounds a lot like "nuclear power will be too cheap to meter."

I do agree with this, Perhaps the most capacious and galvanizing account is one I heard from Kate Marvel of NASA, a lead chapter author on the fifth National Climate Assessment: “The world will be what we make it.” We should do what is right for the environment but can't lose our minds like many have.

GannonFan wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 11:43 am

houndawg wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 11:17 am

There should be some form of public service related to climate change - we have hundreds of mothballed naval vessels that could be repurposed for removing plastic from the oceans, a new version of the CCC for restoring forest/saving coastline/waterways....

Not a bad idea per se, but what powers the propulsion on those mothballed ships? If it was nuclear I imagine that has been stripped out (even if it wasn't, how many qualified nuclear engineers do we have who can operate these?), and if it wasn't then whatever we'd burn to move the ships would far outweigh the environmental benefits of the plastic removing cruise.

I have to disagree without seeing how you calculated your result

houndawg wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 1:48 pm

GannonFan wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 11:43 am

Not a bad idea per se, but what powers the propulsion on those mothballed ships? If it was nuclear I imagine that has been stripped out (even if it wasn't, how many qualified nuclear engineers do we have who can operate these?), and if it wasn't then whatever we'd burn to move the ships would far outweigh the environmental benefits of the plastic removing cruise.

I have to disagree without seeing how you calculated your result

Dude. Nobody shows the data and how it was calculated on the topic of climate change. Get on board!

Not knocking GF here, but the establishment.

SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 1:59 pm

houndawg wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 1:48 pm

I have to disagree without seeing how you calculated your result

Dude. Nobody shows the data and how it was calculated on the topic of climate change. Get on board!

Not knocking GF here, but the establishment.

Yes I know, that was my way of saying he's blowing smoke.

houndawg wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 2:04 pm

SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 1:59 pm

Dude. Nobody shows the data and how it was calculated on the topic of climate change. Get on board!

Not knocking GF here, but the establishment.

Yes I know, that was my way of saying he's blowing smoke.

How am I blowing smoke? These mothballed ships aren't powered by wind by raising their sails. You said you wanted to get ships out of storage and sail them around the oceans picking up plastic. And you referenced hundreds of such ships. If we used an Arleigh-Burke class destroyer as an example, and that's on the efficient side of things, they still use about 1,000 gallons of fuel per hour to cruise around at 20 knots. So that's 24,000 gallons per day per ship. But could you even pick up and store plastic at the quantities you're talking about in a small ship like a destroyer? Say you use a cruise ship that's converted over - plenty of extra space there. Problem is, a ship of that size (which is about 8,000 TEU) would probably run at about 80,000 gallons of fuel per day. And again, you think we'd need about 100 of these (which seems a small number to be sweeping the oceans looking for plastic).

So yeah, thanks for asking for more detail on the assessment of your idea. With the numbers in hand now, I can safely say that your suggestion lacks any merit at all and we should definitely not try to implement that plan. Phew, almost contributed to further climate disaster there if we went with your proposal. Thank you math.

UNI88 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 2:34 pm

The whole field is full of quack science.

GannonFan wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 2:38 pm

houndawg wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 2:04 pm

Yes I know, that was my way of saying he's blowing smoke.

How am I blowing smoke? These mothballed ships aren't powered by wind by raising their sails. You said you wanted to get ships out of storage and sail them around the oceans picking up plastic. And you referenced hundreds of such ships. If we used an Arleigh-Burke class destroyer as an example, and that's on the efficient side of things, they still use about 1,000 gallons of fuel per hour to cruise around at 20 knots. So that's 24,000 gallons per day per ship. But could you even pick up and store plastic at the quantities you're talking about in a small ship like a destroyer? Say you use a cruise ship that's converted over - plenty of extra space there. Problem is, a ship of that size (which is about 8,000 TEU) would probably run at about 80,000 gallons of fuel per day. And again, you think we'd need about 100 of these (which seems a small number to be sweeping the oceans looking for plastic).

So yeah, thanks for asking for more detail on the assessment of your idea. With the numbers in hand now, I can safely say that your suggestion lacks any merit at all and we should definitely not try to implement that plan. Phew, almost contributed to further climate disaster there if we went with your proposal. Thank you math.

I didn't say anything about how many we'd need, you're making up shit and acting like a hysterical schoolgirl because you're butthurt.

GannonFan wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 2:38 pm

houndawg wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 2:04 pm

Yes I know, that was my way of saying he's blowing smoke.

How am I blowing smoke? These mothballed ships aren't powered by wind by raising their sails. You said you wanted to get ships out of storage and sail them around the oceans picking up plastic. And you referenced hundreds of such ships. If we used an Arleigh-Burke class destroyer as an example, and that's on the efficient side of things, they still use about 1,000 gallons of fuel per hour to cruise around at 20 knots. So that's 24,000 gallons per day per ship. But could you even pick up and store plastic at the quantities you're talking about in a small ship like a destroyer? Say you use a cruise ship that's converted over - plenty of extra space there. Problem is, a ship of that size (which is about 8,000 TEU) would probably run at about 80,000 gallons of fuel per day. And again, you think we'd need about 100 of these (which seems a small number to be sweeping the oceans looking for plastic).

So yeah, thanks for asking for more detail on the assessment of your idea. With the numbers in hand now, I can safely say that your suggestion lacks any merit at all and we should definitely not try to implement that plan. Phew, almost contributed to further climate disaster there if we went with your proposal. Thank you math.

You make some very uninformed assumptions. Seriously dude, if mothballed Navy ships aren't realisticly repurposed then you use the same fishing boats that will soon have fished out the oceans to trawl plastic and deliver it to the floating recycling center in the middle of the garbage patch where there is plenty of sun for power...of course their is always some pencil-neck accountant reflexively opposed to, well, anything, but he future value of a sustainably-harvested clean ocean to a world of 8 billion people and rising is infinite.

houndawg wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 3:30 pm

GannonFan wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 2:38 pm

How am I blowing smoke? These mothballed ships aren't powered by wind by raising their sails. You said you wanted to get ships out of storage and sail them around the oceans picking up plastic. And you referenced hundreds of such ships. If we used an Arleigh-Burke class destroyer as an example, and that's on the efficient side of things, they still use about 1,000 gallons of fuel per hour to cruise around at 20 knots. So that's 24,000 gallons per day per ship. But could you even pick up and store plastic at the quantities you're talking about in a small ship like a destroyer? Say you use a cruise ship that's converted over - plenty of extra space there. Problem is, a ship of that size (which is about 8,000 TEU) would probably run at about 80,000 gallons of fuel per day. And again, you think we'd need about 100 of these (which seems a small number to be sweeping the oceans looking for plastic).

So yeah, thanks for asking for more detail on the assessment of your idea. With the numbers in hand now, I can safely say that your suggestion lacks any merit at all and we should definitely not try to implement that plan. Phew, almost contributed to further climate disaster there if we went with your proposal. Thank you math.

You make some very uninformed assumptions. Seriously dude, if mothballed Navy ships aren't realisticly repurposed then you use the same fishing boats that will soon have fished out the oceans to trawl plastic and deliver it to the floating recycling center in the middle of the garbage patch where there is plenty of sun for power...of course their is always some pencil-neck accountant reflexively opposed to, well, anything, but he future value of a sustainably-harvested clean ocean to a world of 8 billion people and rising is infinite.

Or conversely, your idea is full of crap and you're afraid to admit it. You do you.

GannonFan wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 4:13 pm

houndawg wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 3:30 pm

You make some very uninformed assumptions. Seriously dude, if mothballed Navy ships aren't realisticly repurposed then you use the same fishing boats that will soon have fished out the oceans to trawl plastic and deliver it to the floating recycling center in the middle of the garbage patch where there is plenty of sun for power...of course their is always some pencil-neck accountant reflexively opposed to, well, anything, but he future value of a sustainably-harvested clean ocean to a world of 8 billion people and rising is infinite.

Or conversely, your idea is full of crap and you're afraid to admit it. You do you.

somebody is still butthurt about the election methinks

houndawg wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 8:00 am

GannonFan wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 4:13 pm
Or conversely, your idea is full of crap and you're afraid to admit it. You do you.

somebody is still butthurt about the election methinks

Have you read Ganny's posts? He doesn't vote R or D, he votes for who he feels is the best candidate. I'm pretty sure he said he voted for Josh Shapiro (D) for Governor of Pennsylvania.

Might you be butthurt because he called you out on a hair-brained idea?

UNI88 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 8:51 am

houndawg wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 8:00 am

somebody is still butthurt about the election methinks

Have you read Ganny's posts? He doesn't vote R or D, he votes for who he feels is the best candidate. I'm pretty sure he said he voted for Josh Shapiro (D) for Governor of Pennsylvania.

Might you be butthurt because he called you out on a hair-brained idea?

I went mainly D this election, although I did lose with Oz - I felt Fetterman was going to win (see my election prediction) but I didn't care for him, felt his background was more puff than real, and the physical health issues just compounded that. Regardless, I've been pretty vocal that regardless of the election, PA was going to have one of the worst rosters of Senators relative to other states. The GOP hasn't put up a really credible Senate candidate in awhile to challenge Casey, so we'll see if they can find anyone for 2024 when his term is up.

As for the other races, Shapiro, the Dem, was an easy selection over the whack-job Mastriani. Plus Shapiro started out where I live and was a pretty good county commissioner so I've always liked him. My Congressperson, Madeleine Dean, a D, was reelected and I like that. I think my selection of the Democrat for the State House lost, but she was a long shot. We wanted her since the GOP candidate is currently on our school board and while she's a little kooky, she's not anywhere near as kooky as the person they could put on the School Board to replace her if she won the election, so now we'll have to see what happens there. And in a complete surprise, my vote for the Democratic candidate for the State Senate, Dennin, may have squeaked out a surprise victory. Especially happy about that because we still rent a shore house in Ocean City, NJ from her and if she didn't win election this time (she ran 2 years ago and lost) she may have retired fully and may have started to use the shore house full time, which would've bumped us. We've been renting that house for the past 15 years (think they only rent to us anymore) and they haven't raised the rent in years so we're getting a bargain. So all in all, a pretty good election outcome from my perspective.

And yes, houndy's butt must hurt as his idea was pure BS and he hates being called out on that when it happens. Poor dude.

UNI88 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 8:51 am

houndawg wrote: ↑Fri Nov 18, 2022 8:00 am

somebody is still butthurt about the election methinks

Have you read Ganny's posts? He doesn't vote R or D, he votes for who he feels is the best candidate. I'm pretty sure he said he voted for Josh Shapiro (D) for Governor of Pennsylvania.

Might you be butthurt because he called you out on a hair-brained idea?

Not at all - I'm accustomed to being ahead of the curve; he'll see

Read the entire article at https://www.nationalgeographic.com/envi ... -pollution if you have time. Here is a quote relevant to the question about the bottle the Congressman was holding was ''likely'' to end up in the ocean:

In all, the United States contributed up to 2.24 million metric tons into the environment in 2016, and of that, more than half—1.5 million metric tons—was along coastlines, meaning it had a high probability of slipping into the oceans.

I presume that hearing was going on in Washington, DC. If that's so, there was a high probability, according to the study being discussed in that article, of the plastic waste that bottle would become ending up in the ocean. The Congressman was showing his ignorance in taking that approach.

Exxon had some skilled climatologists back in the day…

A new study, however, has made clear that Exxon’s scientists were uncannily accurate in their projections from the 1970s onwards, predicting an upward curve of global temperatures and carbon dioxide emissions that is close to matching what actually occurred as the world heated up at a pace not seen in millions of years.

Exxon scientists predicted there would be global heating of about 0.2C a decade due to the emissions of planet-heating gases from the burning of oil, coal and other fossil fuels. The new analysis, published in Science, finds that Exxon’s science was highly adept and the “projections were also consistent with, and at least as skillful as, those of independent academic and government models”.

Geoffrey Supran, whose previous research of historical industry documents helped shed light on what Exxon and other oil firms knew, said it was “breathtaking” to see Exxon’s projections line up so closely with what subsequently happened.


“This really does sum up what Exxon knew, years before many of us were born,” said Supran, who led the analysis conducted by researchers from Harvard University and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. “We now have the smoking gun showing that they accurately predicted warming years before they started attacking the science. These graphs confirm the complicity of what Exxon knew and how they misled.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... tid=Zxz2cZ

GannonFan wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 11:43 am

houndawg wrote: ↑Tue Nov 15, 2022 11:17 am

There should be some form of public service related to climate change - we have hundreds of mothballed naval vessels that could be repurposed for removing plastic from the oceans, a new version of the CCC for restoring forest/saving coastline/waterways....

Not a bad idea per se, but what powers the propulsion on those mothballed ships? If it was nuclear I imagine that has been stripped out (even if it wasn't, how many qualified nuclear engineers do we have who can operate these?), and if it wasn't then whatever we'd burn to move the ships would far outweigh the environmental benefits of the plastic removing cruise.

I think you're blowing smoke - lets see your calculations.

GannonFan wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 2:38 pm

houndawg wrote: ↑Wed Nov 16, 2022 2:04 pm

Yes I know, that was my way of saying he's blowing smoke.

How am I blowing smoke? These mothballed ships aren't powered by wind by raising their sails. You said you wanted to get ships out of storage and sail them around the oceans picking up plastic. And you referenced hundreds of such ships. If we used an Arleigh-Burke class destroyer as an example, and that's on the efficient side of things, they still use about 1,000 gallons of fuel per hour to cruise around at 20 knots. So that's 24,000 gallons per day per ship. But could you even pick up and store plastic at the quantities you're talking about in a small ship like a destroyer? Say you use a cruise ship that's converted over - plenty of extra space there. Problem is, a ship of that size (which is about 8,000 TEU) would probably run at about 80,000 gallons of fuel per day. And again, you think we'd need about 100 of these (which seems a small number to be sweeping the oceans looking for plastic).

So yeah, thanks for asking for more detail on the assessment of your idea. With the numbers in hand now, I can safely say that your suggestion lacks any merit at all and we should definitely not try to implement that plan. Phew, almost contributed to further climate disaster there if we went with your proposal. Thank you math.

Fantasy numbers


They'd be much more likely to use old minesweepers and suggesting they cruise it 20 knots is just something you pulled out your ass. Thought you STEM types were brighter than that

But lets see your math. Don't forget the other side of the equation this time, there's more to it than wild guesses about fuel consumption.

kalm wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 8:40 pm Exxon had some skilled climatologists back in the day…

A new study, however, has made clear that Exxon’s scientists were uncannily accurate in their projections from the 1970s onwards, predicting an upward curve of global temperatures and carbon dioxide emissions that is close to matching what actually occurred as the world heated up at a pace not seen in millions of years.

Exxon scientists predicted there would be global heating of about 0.2C a decade due to the emissions of planet-heating gases from the burning of oil, coal and other fossil fuels. The new analysis, published in Science, finds that Exxon’s science was highly adept and the “projections were also consistent with, and at least as skillful as, those of independent academic and government models”.

Geoffrey Supran, whose previous research of historical industry documents helped shed light on what Exxon and other oil firms knew, said it was “breathtaking” to see Exxon’s projections line up so closely with what subsequently happened.


“This really does sum up what Exxon knew, years before many of us were born,” said Supran, who led the analysis conducted by researchers from Harvard University and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. “We now have the smoking gun showing that they accurately predicted warming years before they started attacking the science. These graphs confirm the complicity of what Exxon knew and how they misled.”

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... tid=Zxz2cZ

Standard Oil engineers were warning about the atmospheric issues before 1920.

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 11:41 pm

He’s a freedom fighter for sure.