Climate Change/Global Warming [On Topic]

[BIGUN 1,314]

I sent the following link to Bill yesterday and have read it and the sources. Quite by happenstance; I was sitting in a lobby yesterday and there were a couple of Boomers, both wearing a Vietnam Veteran hat. They started out talking about Nam and it segued into politics and liberal ideology on Climate. They both agreed that the libs invented climate change, when "we've had climate change for thousands of years." What they were talking about was, "weather."  Makes me wonder if the change in verbiage to climate change rather than global warming allows people to not investigate the real reason for climate change and if the poster should read - global warming. 

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a60819842/50000-year-old-block-of-ice/ 

Edited May 23, 2024 by BIGUN

[gowlerk 2,193]

26 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Makes me wonder if the change in verbiage to climate change rather than global warming allows people to not investigate the real reason for climate change and if the poster should read - global warming. 

I believe you are onto something there. Climate change seems to be a term used to soften and hide the true meaning. It is dishonest. Global warming is the driving force causing the so called climate change and it is better to state that right up front and not pussyfoot around it.

[billvon 2,991]

2 hours ago, gowlerk said:

I believe you are onto something there. Climate change seems to be a term used to soften and hide the true meaning. It is dishonest. 

I think it's both honest and accurate, since there are more climactic changes than the warming we are seeing.  But the warming is certainly the biggest aspect / biggest problem when it comes to climate change.

[wmw999 2,447]

And maybe we also need to make It clear that humans have dealt with that much climate change before; it’s just that now we have a whole lot more humans, and a whole lot more infrastructure to protect. Many homeowners never need their insurance, but most carry it, and do maintenance, anyway 

Wendy P.

 

[kallend 2,027]

Tried to bring this up in another climate thread but Coreece derailed it with a right wing rant about liberal morality or gays or somesuch.

Anyhow:

https://www.space.com/thwaites-glacier-antarctica-melting-faster

Seems the huge Thwaites glacier in Antarctica is melting faster then previously thought.  Must be the weather.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

7 hours ago, kallend said:

Tried to bring this up in another climate thread but Coreece derailed it with a right wing rant about liberal morality or gays or somesuch.

Anyhow:

https://www.space.com/thwaites-glacier-antarctica-melting-faster

Seems the huge Thwaites glacier in Antarctica is melting faster then previously thought.  Must be the weather.

Well, the Lord works in mysterious ways and if you have weekends free there are entire buildings all over your town chock full of experts dressed like double first recipients, or better, happy to explain it all. 

[billvon 2,991]

In terms of real life examples of climate change:

In San Diego the seas have risen about a foot over the past 80 years or so.  And that means that the train tracks in Del Mar, once a hundred feet inland on some high bluffs, are now eroding away.  The bluffs are losing about six inches a year, and there's only a few feet left before the tracks start dangling off the edge.

So they are going to have to do a "realignment" which means moving about half a mile inland.  And since Del Mar is full of rich people they are going to have to tunnel under the town, at a cost of almost a billion dollars.

This sort of thing is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the costs we will have to pay for climate change.  And California can afford to pay it, unlike some of the third world countries out there.

[BIGUN 1,314]

5 hours ago, billvon said:

And since Del Mar is full of rich people they are going to have to tunnel under the town, at a cost of almost a billion dollars.

So, help me understand. California is willing to spend upwards of 8 Billion dollars for moving a train (IMO: an antiquated system - why do we need trains?) rather than using it to reduce emissions or develop new forms of transportation? 

[gowlerk 2,193]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

 (IMO: an antiquated system - why do we need trains?) rather than using it to reduce emissions or develop new forms of transportation? 

Trains are not unneeded. They are a key part of how our systems work. There is nothing that replaces them so why do you consider them antiquated?

Edited June 5, 2024 by gowlerk

[jakee 1,489]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

So, help me understand. California is willing to spend upwards of 8 Billion dollars for moving a train 

Wait till you find out how much they spend every year on roads.

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

(IMO: an antiquated system - why do we need trains?) 

Trains move heavy things long distances. What are you going to do with it instead? Put it all on trucks? How much more are you going to spend on the road infrastructure they need?

 

As an aside, Who Framed Roger Rabbit is actually a documentary. The dystopian 18 lane freeway hellscape that covers much of LA’s surface area is to quite some degree a result of a conglomeration of auto companies buying the city’s (and others) mass transportation system and closing it down in favour of the cars and buses they make.

Wouldn’t you rather be on a train?

Edited June 5, 2024 by jakee

[Phil1111 1,149]

The NYT has a article today about a St. Petersburg neighborhood that has experienced multiple floods. Some homeowners are stuck because they can't afford to elevate their homes. Most insurers have walked away.

Global warming is an abstract idea until it isn't.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

The NYT has a article today about a St. Petersburg neighborhood that has experienced multiple floods. Some homeowners are stuck because they can't afford to elevate their homes. Most insurers have walked away.

Global warming is an abstract idea until it isn't.

Moving somewhere else, and selling out to someone dumber than you, before Hurricane 150 or flash flood 75 hits while observing that insurance premiums in your location are rising rapidly and forecast to become unavailable when you can't afford to self insure is also not an entirely abstract idea. This one isn't a conversation about global warming it's one about staying in the path of disaster and then being a crybaby about it when you lose everything and no one donated to your go fund me. If you live in Florida and aren't hurricane or flood proof or are just happy to take the risk because you can, get moving. Me, I'm hoping values in the Keys retreat to where I can get something well located near friends. But I won't be crying if I get swamped.

[billvon 2,991]

5 hours ago, BIGUN said:

So, help me understand. California is willing to spend upwards of 8 Billion dollars for moving a train (IMO: an antiquated system - why do we need trains?) rather than using it to reduce emissions or develop new forms of transportation? 

They are using it to reduce emissions.  That rail line moves 8 million people and over a billion dollars worth of goods (cars, lumber, bulk liquids) a year, at a much lower emissions profile than moving all those people/goods on the road would be.  It carries commuter rail, Amtrak and freight.

Plus, of course, the roads can't handle any more traffic; they are already at a standstill during rush hours.

[BIGUN 1,314]

25 minutes ago, billvon said:

That rail line moves 8 million people and over a billion dollars worth of goods (cars, lumber, bulk liquids) a year, at a much lower emissions profile than moving all those people/goods on the road would be. 

Thanks. Wasn't aware of that particular rail line. 

[CygnusX-1 43]

4 hours ago, jakee said:

Wouldn’t you rather be on a train?

No way! Not until the train stops in front of my house so all I have to do is walk outside my door and get on the train. Not until the train waits until the exact time I want to leave and then is ready to go. Not until the train takes me directly to my desired location without stopping anywhere else first. Not until the train is ready to pick me back up at the time I want to leave my desired location and take me back to my front door would I rather be on a train.

Until that happens, screw you and your climate change!!! I don't need to change anything.

[gowlerk 2,193]

2 minutes ago, CygnusX-1 said:

Until that happens, screw you and your climate change!!! I don't need to change anything.

Most of the people who seem concerned about climate change are not willing to give up their cars and become bus riders. Or their vacations on far away continents, or skydiving etc. Myself included. Billvon feels living in San Diego and using solar helps, and maybe it does by a tiny fraction, but so what? Party on.

[jakee 1,489]

35 minutes ago, CygnusX-1 said:

No way! Not until the train stops in front of my house so all I have to do is walk outside my door and get on the train. Not until the train waits until the exact time I want to leave and then is ready to go. Not until the train takes me directly to my desired location without stopping anywhere else first. Not until the train is ready to pick me back up at the time I want to leave my desired location and take me back to my front door would I rather be on a train.

Until that happens, screw you and your climate change!!! I don't need to change anything.

Hehehe yep.

I think there’s a paradox at work as well - A) everyone hates traffic jams but B ) expanded road systems cannibalise so much space and resources that the alternatives to roads became more and more impractical, forcing more people into cars which take up more space on the new, expanded roads, resulting in more people sitting in even longer traffic jams than we had before.

But because someone once decided that a bigger road bike as the answer, we’re stuck with an expensive, slow, dirty, physically gigantic system that no one ever asked for but that it’s very difficult to do anything about.

[billvon 2,991]

5 minutes ago, jakee said:

I think there’s a paradox at work as well - A) everyone hates traffic jams but B ) expanded road systems cannibalise so much space and resources that the alternatives to roads became more and more impractical, forcing more people into cars which take up more space on the new, expanded roads, resulting in more people sitting in even longer traffic jams than we had before.

There's also C) - as roads expand they eat into housing, retail and commercial space, so those things must be relocated further away from each other, resulting in . . . . more traffic.

Here in San Diego they put up a new trolley line that is 80% elevated, thus avoiding reduction of space for roads (and businesses etc) but that's an expensive solution.

[kallend 2,027]

7 hours ago, BIGUN said:

So, help me understand. California is willing to spend upwards of 8 Billion dollars for moving a train (IMO: an antiquated system - why do we need trains?) rather than using it to reduce emissions or develop new forms of transportation? 

Antiquated, sure, in that railroads date back to 1804.

However, road transport costs 3x that of rail for moving freight a given distance  when all expenses are taken into account, according to the CBO.  Movement by ship is even less expensive.

[kallend 2,027]

1 hour ago, CygnusX-1 said:

No way! Not until the train stops in front of my house so all I have to do is walk outside my door and get on the train. Not until the train waits until the exact time I want to leave and then is ready to go. Not until the train takes me directly to my desired location without stopping anywhere else first. Not until the train is ready to pick me back up at the time I want to leave my desired location and take me back to my front door would I rather be on a train.

Until that happens, screw you and your climate change!!! I don't need to change anything.

In the last 2 years before I retired I commuted by train instead of car, and it was a really pleasant change.  Fortunately we live a block from the train station, and the line ("The Rock Island Line") also has a stop on the campus.  I reckon I saved money overall (gas, parking, wear and tear. . . ), and the trip was reliably faster than commuting on clogged highways. 

[jakee 1,489]

2 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Thanks. Wasn't aware of that particular rail line. 

The point is it's not just that particular line. Railways are excellent at moving things and people. They're indespensible for freight, and would be even better at metro transport than they are now if they hadn't been artificially hobbled for decades. 

What made you think they were antiquated? They might be a bit older than other motorised transport (significantly less than twice as old as aeroplanes, by the way) but in the absence of transporter beams what do you have that is better at the things they do well?

[jakee 1,489]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

There's also C) - as roads expand they eat into housing, retail and commercial space, so those things must be relocated further away from each other, resulting in . . . . more traffic.

Then there's a whole socio-economic conversation about deprived neighbourhoods where people too poor to afford cars are isolated and marooned (sometimes by malicious intention) by the car only road networks that surround them... but that might be straying too far off topic.

[BIGUN 1,314]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

Antiquated, sure, in that railroads date back to 1804.

That was my thought process. 

1 hour ago, kallend said:

However, road transport costs 3x that of rail for moving freight a given distance  when all expenses are taken into account, according to the CBO.  Movement by ship is even less expensive.

Thanks. New information. 

[kallend 2,027]

Kinda warm in parts:

On Sunday, temperatures in Las Vegas hit 120 degrees for the first time in recorded history, according to preliminary data from the weather service. The temperature had never climbed above 117 degrees prior to Sunday.

 Las Vegas temperatures have exceeded 110 degrees each day since July 3 and are forecast to do so every day until at least next Sunday. That will mark a stretch of prolonged extreme heat longer than any ever experienced in the city, with 11 days or more above 110 degrees.

[johnhking1 96]

11 hours ago, kallend said:

Kinda warm in parts:

On Sunday, temperatures in Las Vegas hit 120 degrees for the first time in recorded history, according to preliminary data from the weather service. The temperature had never climbed above 117 degrees prior to Sunday.

 Las Vegas temperatures have exceeded 110 degrees each day since July 3 and are forecast to do so every day until at least next Sunday. That will mark a stretch of prolonged extreme heat longer than any ever experienced in the city, with 11 days or more above 110 degrees.

Maybe people from Las Vegas go to Hell for vacation, it may be cooler.