Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #685053 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-05-12 08:57 -0400 |
| Last post | 2018-05-12 19:13 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 155 — 13 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-12 08:57 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-12 13:55 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-12 18:55 +0000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 12:03 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-12 15:16 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 15:52 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 19:02 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 19:13 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 16:35 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 20:06 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 17:43 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 21:01 -0500
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 20:53 -0500
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 11:12 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2018-05-14 18:57 -0500
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-14 22:40 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 12:00 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-15 21:59 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-17 06:05 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-20 13:13 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-20 23:54 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-21 09:08 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 06:47 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-26 09:11 +1000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-21 06:12 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-22 00:27 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-22 07:59 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 06:29 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 11:00 +1000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 11:17 +1000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 06:36 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-25 11:11 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-26 08:48 +1000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-26 08:51 +1000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-23 00:22 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 14:31 +1000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 14:39 +1000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-23 00:50 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-23 15:04 +1000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-25 06:22 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 12:54 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 12:58 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-12 15:14 -0600
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-12 19:12 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-12 17:28 -0600
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 16:35 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 23:57 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 10:48 -0500
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 19:05 -0500
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-13 10:30 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 12:54 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 10:19 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 13:34 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 10:40 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 13:58 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 11:09 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 10:46 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-13 19:54 +0000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 13:13 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 17:58 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 15:48 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 18:55 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 16:02 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-14 00:43 +0000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 17:45 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 21:30 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 18:32 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 21:36 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-14 03:43 +0000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 12:53 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 09:48 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-13 08:56 +1000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-12 19:20 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 16:25 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-13 09:32 +1000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 19:02 -0500
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-13 10:33 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-13 12:32 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 12:01 -0500
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-13 19:57 +0000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 13:13 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-14 11:24 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-14 10:46 -0500
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 12:58 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-13 20:19 +0000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 13:21 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-13 20:34 +0000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 13:45 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 13:49 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 13:47 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 01:43 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-15 14:35 -0500
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 12:37 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2018-05-15 20:19 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-15 19:45 -0500
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-12 21:03 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 18:09 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-13 01:19 +0000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 18:24 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-12 21:29 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 18:30 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-13 01:58 +0000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 19:13 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-13 11:54 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 11:14 -0500
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-13 20:01 +0000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 13:14 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-13 19:59 +0000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 13:14 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 13:25 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-13 20:36 +0000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 13:46 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 13:49 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 16:19 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-12 21:40 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-13 02:01 +0000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 19:13 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-12 22:41 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-13 02:56 +0000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 01:42 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 01:52 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-13 10:37 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-13 12:40 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 10:42 -0500
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-13 12:33 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-13 12:12 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-13 10:36 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 12:17 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-14 11:17 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-15 15:17 -0500
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-15 22:55 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-15 20:19 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-13 12:39 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-13 12:11 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-13 20:06 +0000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 13:15 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 05:38 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-05-13 10:37 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-13 12:17 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-13 12:35 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-13 12:01 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 22:06 -0500
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-13 12:06 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-13 11:57 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 11:22 -0500
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-14 11:19 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-13 20:08 +0000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 13:15 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 22:01 -0500
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-05-13 03:12 +0000
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-05-12 12:29 -0600
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-12 19:05 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 16:09 -0700
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2018-05-12 21:42 -0400
Re: UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 19:13 -0700
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-12 08:57 -0400 |
| Subject | UN Climate Change Launches First-Ever Annual Report |
| Message-ID | <pd6ob5$1ne8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
UN Climate Change today launched its first-ever Annual Report, laying out the key 2017 achievements and pointing to the future of the climate change process. "Climate Change is the single biggest threat to life, security and prosperity on Earth," said UN Climate Change: https://unfccc.int/news/un-climate-change-launches-first-ever-annual-report -- "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks "I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade in here." ~Checkmate
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-12 13:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mgaefdhrqo1e48cr8u6oj0up5e546nf14h@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #685053 |
On Sat, 12 May 2018 08:57:03 -0400, kensi wrote: >UN Climate Change today launched its first-ever Annual Report, Maybe it will also be its last? > laying >out the key 2017 achievements and pointing to the future of the climate >change process. "Climate Change is the single biggest threat to life, >security and prosperity on Earth," That's deluded. It pales in comparison to the threat from a big ass asteroid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-12 18:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pd7db9$isc$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #685083 |
Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! On Sat, 12 May 2018 13:55:58 -0400, Wally W. wrote: > On Sat, 12 May 2018 08:57:03 -0400, kensi wrote: > >>UN Climate Change today launched its first-ever Annual Report, > > Maybe it will also be its last? > > >> laying >>out the key 2017 achievements and pointing to the future of the climate >>change process. "Climate Change is the single biggest threat to life, >>security and prosperity on Earth," > > That's deluded. > > It pales in comparison to the threat from a big ass asteroid. Except that there's no "big ass asteroid" threatening imminent collision with Earth. Meanwhile, climate change is already causing damage. New Orleans 2005. New York 2012. Houston, Florida, and Puerto Rico 2017. Ongoing flooding issues in Miami. Massive wildfires in the west. Lethal heat-waves in France. And on it goes ... -- FNVWe Nadegda Fakey couldn't teach a monkey to eat a banana, much less answer a direct question posed to him. -- Fakey's Dogwhistle Holder
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-12 12:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b943a7.a1r.19.13@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #685092 |
On 2018-05-12 11:55 AM, Nadegda wrote: > Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! > On Sat, 12 May 2018 13:55:58 -0400, Wally W. wrote: > >> On Sat, 12 May 2018 08:57:03 -0400, kensi wrote: >> >>> UN Climate Change today launched its first-ever Annual Report, >> >> Maybe it will also be its last? >> >> >>> laying >>> out the key 2017 achievements and pointing to the future of the climate >>> change process. "Climate Change is the single biggest threat to life, >>> security and prosperity on Earth," >> >> That's deluded. >> >> It pales in comparison to the threat from a big ass asteroid. > > Except that there's no "big ass asteroid" threatening imminent collision > with Earth. Meanwhile, climate change is already causing damage. New > Orleans 2005. New York 2012. Houston, Florida, and Puerto Rico 2017. > Ongoing flooding issues in Miami. Massive wildfires in the west. Lethal > heat-waves in France. And on it goes ... > there is an imminent threat if you fall over , then we'll see the threat from a big ass asteroid
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-12 15:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <3afefdd77tb964blsbpviolln1h7gjk9j6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #685092 |
On Sat, 12 May 2018 18:55:37 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda wrote: >Time to trigger the right-wing snowflakes again. Melt, snowflakes, melt! >On Sat, 12 May 2018 13:55:58 -0400, Wally W. wrote: > >> On Sat, 12 May 2018 08:57:03 -0400, kensi wrote: >> >>>UN Climate Change today launched its first-ever Annual Report, >> >> Maybe it will also be its last? >> >> >>> laying >>>out the key 2017 achievements and pointing to the future of the climate >>>change process. "Climate Change is the single biggest threat to life, >>>security and prosperity on Earth," >> >> That's deluded. >> >> It pales in comparison to the threat from a big ass asteroid. > >Except that there's no "big ass asteroid" threatening imminent collision >with Earth. How do you know that? You don't. >Meanwhile, climate change is already causing damage. New >Orleans 2005. New York 2012. Houston, Florida, and Puerto Rico 2017. >Ongoing flooding issues in Miami. Massive wildfires in the west. Lethal >heat-waves in France. And on it goes ... On you say ... whether it goes or not is another topic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 15:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2b1cdef1-a811-496c-bf78-d51b18b468c6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #685099 |
On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 3:16:51 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote: > On Sat, 12 May 2018 18:55:37 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda wrote: > >On Sat, 12 May 2018 13:55:58 -0400, Wally W. wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 12 May 2018 08:57:03 -0400, kensi wrote: > >> > >>>UN Climate Change today launched its first-ever Annual Report, > >> > >> Maybe it will also be its last? > >>>change process. "Climate Change is the single biggest threat to life, > >>>security and prosperity on Earth," > >> > >> That's deluded. > >> > >> It pales in comparison to the threat from a big ass asteroid. > > > >Except that there's no "big ass asteroid" threatening imminent collision > >with Earth. > > How do you know that? > > You don't. Neither do you. The probability of massive asteroid collision is estimated, but poorly. Climate effects are being measured, both current changes and the historical record. It is still a matter of probability, but the base of data is much more extensive for climate change. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 19:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ulghfdpkcc74dovhr8b5lts6e6edo61o0p@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #685328 |
On Sun, 13 May 2018 15:52:20 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote: >On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 3:16:51 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote: >> On Sat, 12 May 2018 18:55:37 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda wrote: >> >On Sat, 12 May 2018 13:55:58 -0400, Wally W. wrote: >> > >> >> On Sat, 12 May 2018 08:57:03 -0400, kensi wrote: >> >> >> >>>UN Climate Change today launched its first-ever Annual Report, >> >> >> >> Maybe it will also be its last? > >> >>>change process. "Climate Change is the single biggest threat to life, >> >>>security and prosperity on Earth," >> >> >> >> That's deluded. >> >> >> >> It pales in comparison to the threat from a big ass asteroid. >> > >> >Except that there's no "big ass asteroid" threatening imminent collision >> >with Earth. >> >> How do you know that? >> >> You don't. > >Neither do you. Unlike others, I didn't say "the big one" isn't out there. >The probability of massive asteroid collision > is estimated, but poorly. > >Climate effects are being measured, both current changes >and the historical record. It is still a matter of >probability, but the base of data is much more extensive >for climate change. Does the "extensive" amount of climate data compared with the relatively sparse data on prior impacts tell us we would be in deeper doo-doo from driving SUVs or from the impact of a large asteroid?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 19:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <dbhhfdlfk0nleibk4dk09r4hjvqqciv9hh@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #685331 |
On Sun, 13 May 2018 19:02:56 -0400, Wally W. wrote: >On Sun, 13 May 2018 15:52:20 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote: > >>On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 3:16:51 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote: >>> On Sat, 12 May 2018 18:55:37 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda wrote: >>> >On Sat, 12 May 2018 13:55:58 -0400, Wally W. wrote: >>> > >>> >> On Sat, 12 May 2018 08:57:03 -0400, kensi wrote: >>> >> >>> >>>UN Climate Change today launched its first-ever Annual Report, >>> >> >>> >> Maybe it will also be its last? >> >>> >>>change process. "Climate Change is the single biggest threat to life, >>> >>>security and prosperity on Earth," >>> >> >>> >> That's deluded. >>> >> >>> >> It pales in comparison to the threat from a big ass asteroid. >>> > >>> >Except that there's no "big ass asteroid" threatening imminent collision >>> >with Earth. >>> >>> How do you know that? >>> >>> You don't. >> >>Neither do you. > >Unlike others, I didn't say "the big one" isn't out there. > >>The probability of massive asteroid collision >> is estimated, but poorly. >> >>Climate effects are being measured, both current changes >>and the historical record. It is still a matter of >>probability, but the base of data is much more extensive >>for climate change. > >Does the "extensive" amount of climate data compared with the >relatively sparse data on prior impacts tell us we would be in deeper >doo-doo from driving SUVs or from the impact of a large asteroid? Talk about "positive feedbacks," how likely is it that a large asteroid impact would trigger one or more of these supervolcanoes? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uxycc9MPhZU SUPERVOLCANO! 7 Supervolcanoes That Threaten The Future of Humanity Cue kensi to whinge about me replying to my own post.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 16:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b81d9229-c72f-4166-aee3-81136388fe33@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #685331 |
On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 7:02:58 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote: > On Sun, 13 May 2018 15:52:20 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote: > > >On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 3:16:51 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote: > >> On Sat, 12 May 2018 18:55:37 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda wrote: > >> >On Sat, 12 May 2018 13:55:58 -0400, Wally W. wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Sat, 12 May 2018 08:57:03 -0400, kensi wrote: > >> >> > >> >>>UN Climate Change today launched its first-ever Annual Report, > >> >> > >> >> Maybe it will also be its last? > > > >> >>>change process. "Climate Change is the single biggest threat to life, > >> >>>security and prosperity on Earth," > >> >> > >> >> That's deluded. > >> >> > >> >> It pales in comparison to the threat from a big ass asteroid. > >> > > >> >Except that there's no "big ass asteroid" threatening imminent collision > >> >with Earth. > >> > >> How do you know that? > >> > >> You don't. > > > >Neither do you. > > Unlike others, I didn't say "the big one" isn't out there. You said that global warming "pales in comparison to the threat from a big ass asteroid." For that to be true, two things have to compare: the extent of damage and the probability of damage. I think we can agree that both events contain the threat to eliminate human and many other species, i.e., extent of damage for both is about the same. You obviously wanted to imply that the probability of a massive asteroid is greater than the climate change we are discussing. My point is that we have much better and reliable data supporting global climate change than we have for asteroid collisions. > > >The probability of massive asteroid collision > > is estimated, but poorly. > > > >Climate effects are being measured, both current changes > >and the historical record. It is still a matter of > >probability, but the base of data is much more extensive > >for climate change. > > Does the "extensive" amount of climate data compared with the > relatively sparse data on prior impacts tell us we would be in deeper > doo-doo from driving SUVs or from the impact of a large asteroid? I agree the extent of damage is the same. Can you do anything more than guess that the likelihood of a massive asteroid is greater than the probability that climate change is heading us all toward disaster? As pointed out earlier, the changes needed to reduce the likelihood and the effects of global climate change are changes we need to make anyway to move away from a fossil fuel energy economy. Status quo isn't going to cut it any more. Enjoy, ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 20:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <0ojhfdlro6fd49fh5gam47aenk52kcqelo@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #685340 |
On Sun, 13 May 2018 16:35:27 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote: >On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 7:02:58 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote: >> On Sun, 13 May 2018 15:52:20 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote: >> >> >On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 3:16:51 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote: >> >> On Sat, 12 May 2018 18:55:37 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda wrote: >> >> >On Sat, 12 May 2018 13:55:58 -0400, Wally W. wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Sat, 12 May 2018 08:57:03 -0400, kensi wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>>UN Climate Change today launched its first-ever Annual Report, >> >> >> >> >> >> Maybe it will also be its last? >> > >> >> >>>change process. "Climate Change is the single biggest threat to life, >> >> >>>security and prosperity on Earth," >> >> >> >> >> >> That's deluded. >> >> >> >> >> >> It pales in comparison to the threat from a big ass asteroid. >> >> > >> >> >Except that there's no "big ass asteroid" threatening imminent collision >> >> >with Earth. >> >> >> >> How do you know that? >> >> >> >> You don't. >> > >> >Neither do you. >> >> Unlike others, I didn't say "the big one" isn't out there. > >You said that > global warming "pales in comparison to the threat from a big ass asteroid." > >For that to be true, two things have to compare: >the extent of damage and the probability of damage. > >I think we can agree that both events contain the threat to >eliminate human and many other species, i.e., extent of damage >for both is about the same. No, I don't think anthropogenic climate change can come close to *eliminating* the human species. Pollution in Pittsburgh in the 1970s didn't eliminate the population of one city, and the immediate dangers from components in that pollution were far greater than the dangers from CO2. >You obviously wanted to imply that the probability >of a massive asteroid is greater than the climate change >we are discussing. > >My point is that we have much better and reliable data supporting >global climate change than we have for asteroid collisions. We do not have "better and and reliable data supporting" catastrophic human-caused global climate change. We can go places to see that *big* craters were formed by impacts from asteroids or somesuch. They have mostly healed by now, but they were *big* holes. One theory has it that a large impact tore off enough of the Earth to create the Moon! That was a much more immediate and drastic effect than what **might** result from driving SUVs. >> >The probability of massive asteroid collision >> > is estimated, but poorly. >> > >> >Climate effects are being measured, both current changes >> >and the historical record. It is still a matter of >> >probability, but the base of data is much more extensive >> >for climate change. >> >> Does the "extensive" amount of climate data compared with the >> relatively sparse data on prior impacts tell us we would be in deeper >> doo-doo from driving SUVs or from the impact of a large asteroid? > >I agree the extent of damage is the same. Nowhere did I imply agreement with such an assessment. I don't think the possibilities for disaster are at all comparable in scale. >Can you do anything more than guess that the likelihood of >a massive asteroid is greater than the probability that >climate change is heading us all toward disaster? > >As pointed out earlier, the changes needed to reduce the likelihood >and the effects of global climate change are changes we need to make >anyway to move away from a fossil fuel energy economy. Okay, nukes (fission and/or fusion) or some new discovery. Wasting money on windmills isn't going to help any of the above happen. We shouldn't be burning hydrocarbons anyway. We need them for chemical feedstocks. >Status quo isn't going to cut it any more. Okay, let's have progress ... not a return to 17th century energy sources. >Enjoy, Likewise.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 17:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ff91133b-e07e-49bd-9f86-ed92fab39811@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #685345 |
On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 8:06:40 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote: > On Sun, 13 May 2018 16:35:27 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote: > > >On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 7:02:58 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote: > >> On Sun, 13 May 2018 15:52:20 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote: > >> > >> >On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 3:16:51 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote: > >> >> On Sat, 12 May 2018 18:55:37 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda wrote: > >> >> >On Sat, 12 May 2018 13:55:58 -0400, Wally W. wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> On Sat, 12 May 2018 08:57:03 -0400, kensi wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >>>UN Climate Change today launched its first-ever Annual Report, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Maybe it will also be its last? > >> > > >> >> >>>change process. "Climate Change is the single biggest threat to life, > >> >> >>>security and prosperity on Earth," > >> >> >> > >> >> >> That's deluded. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> It pales in comparison to the threat from a big ass asteroid. > >> >> > > >> >> >Except that there's no "big ass asteroid" threatening imminent collision > >> >> >with Earth. > >> >> > >> >> How do you know that? > >> >> > >> >> You don't. > >> > > >> >Neither do you. > >> > >> Unlike others, I didn't say "the big one" isn't out there. > > > >You said that > > global warming "pales in comparison to the threat from a big ass asteroid." > > > >For that to be true, two things have to compare: > >the extent of damage and the probability of damage. > > > >I think we can agree that both events contain the threat to > >eliminate human and many other species, i.e., extent of damage > >for both is about the same. > > No, I don't think anthropogenic climate change can come close to > *eliminating* the human species. > > Pollution in Pittsburgh in the 1970s didn't eliminate the population > of one city, and the immediate dangers from components in that > pollution were far greater than the dangers from CO2. > > >You obviously wanted to imply that the probability > >of a massive asteroid is greater than the climate change > >we are discussing. > > > >My point is that we have much better and reliable data supporting > >global climate change than we have for asteroid collisions. > > We do not have "better and and reliable data supporting" catastrophic > human-caused global climate change. > > We can go places to see that *big* craters were formed by impacts from > asteroids or somesuch. They have mostly healed by now, but they were > *big* holes. > > One theory has it that a large impact tore off enough of the Earth to > create the Moon! > > That was a much more immediate and drastic effect than what **might** > result from driving SUVs. > > > >> >The probability of massive asteroid collision > >> > is estimated, but poorly. > >> > > >> >Climate effects are being measured, both current changes > >> >and the historical record. It is still a matter of > >> >probability, but the base of data is much more extensive > >> >for climate change. > >> > >> Does the "extensive" amount of climate data compared with the > >> relatively sparse data on prior impacts tell us we would be in deeper > >> doo-doo from driving SUVs or from the impact of a large asteroid? > > > >I agree the extent of damage is the same. > > Nowhere did I imply agreement with such an assessment. > > I don't think the possibilities for disaster are at all comparable in > scale. Okay, we can agree to disagree here. So mathematically we can compare: Global climate change Damage * Possible large extinction event * Human extinction say 50%? * slow (Decades, possibly a couple centuries) likelihood * Lets normalize this as the unit probability (NOTE: does not mean its probability is 1.) Asteroid impact Damage * Large extinction event * Human extinction >50% * fast (immediate then decades) Likelyhood * thousands less than global climate change This is the information we need to estimate the impact. > > >Can you do anything more than guess that the likelihood of > >a massive asteroid is greater than the probability that > >climate change is heading us all toward disaster? > > > >As pointed out earlier, the changes needed to reduce the likelihood > >and the effects of global climate change are changes we need to make > >anyway to move away from a fossil fuel energy economy. > > Okay, nukes (fission and/or fusion) or some new discovery. Fission has long been known to be just a bridging technology. (At least in the 70's when I studied the energy issue.) Fusion is the solution in the form of solar energy. We already have a working fusion reactor only 8 light minutes away. > > Wasting money on windmills isn't going to help any of the above > happen. We just need to design and build the conversion units: -hydro electric dams (most good locations already in use) -Windmills and tide mills -solar farms -other? Now at least we are discussing concrete actions that actually help the economy, not wasting money. Windmills may actually start to make money. At least investors are finding reasons to put money into building them. I just came back from vacation in florida. Passed a good sized solar farm while there. > > We shouldn't be burning hydrocarbons anyway. We need them for chemical > feedstocks. Interesting you did not say fossil fuels. Long term we need those hydrocarbons from other sources. > > >Status quo isn't going to cut it any more. > > Okay, let's have progress ... not a return to 17th century energy > sources. Exactly. > > >Enjoy, > > Likewise. Now this is how to discuss issues like this guys. Facts, not feelings. Information, not insults. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 21:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pdaqm9$c8o$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #685348 |
On 5/13/2018 7:43 PM, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 8:06:40 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 May 2018 16:35:27 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 7:02:58 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 13 May 2018 15:52:20 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Saturday, May 12, 2018 at 3:16:51 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 12 May 2018 18:55:37 -0000 (UTC), Nadegda wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 12 May 2018 13:55:58 -0400, Wally W. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 12 May 2018 08:57:03 -0400, kensi wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> UN Climate Change today launched its first-ever Annual Report,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe it will also be its last?
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> change process. "Climate Change is the single biggest threat to life,
>>>>>>>>> security and prosperity on Earth,"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's deluded.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It pales in comparison to the threat from a big ass asteroid.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Except that there's no "big ass asteroid" threatening imminent collision
>>>>>>> with Earth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you know that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't.
>>>>>
>>>>> Neither do you.
>>>>
>>>> Unlike others, I didn't say "the big one" isn't out there.
>>>
>>> You said that
>>> global warming "pales in comparison to the threat from a big ass asteroid."
>>>
>>> For that to be true, two things have to compare:
>>> the extent of damage and the probability of damage.
>>>
>>> I think we can agree that both events contain the threat to
>>> eliminate human and many other species, i.e., extent of damage
>>> for both is about the same.
>>
>> No, I don't think anthropogenic climate change can come close to
>> *eliminating* the human species.
>>
>> Pollution in Pittsburgh in the 1970s didn't eliminate the population
>> of one city, and the immediate dangers from components in that
>> pollution were far greater than the dangers from CO2.
>>
>>> You obviously wanted to imply that the probability
>>> of a massive asteroid is greater than the climate change
>>> we are discussing.
>>>
>>> My point is that we have much better and reliable data supporting
>>> global climate change than we have for asteroid collisions.
>>
>> We do not have "better and and reliable data supporting" catastrophic
>> human-caused global climate change.
>>
>> We can go places to see that *big* craters were formed by impacts from
>> asteroids or somesuch. They have mostly healed by now, but they were
>> *big* holes.
>>
>> One theory has it that a large impact tore off enough of the Earth to
>> create the Moon!
>>
>> That was a much more immediate and drastic effect than what **might**
>> result from driving SUVs.
>>
>>
>>>>> The probability of massive asteroid collision
>>>>> is estimated, but poorly.
>>>>>
>>>>> Climate effects are being measured, both current changes
>>>>> and the historical record. It is still a matter of
>>>>> probability, but the base of data is much more extensive
>>>>> for climate change.
>>>>
>>>> Does the "extensive" amount of climate data compared with the
>>>> relatively sparse data on prior impacts tell us we would be in deeper
>>>> doo-doo from driving SUVs or from the impact of a large asteroid?
>>>
>>> I agree the extent of damage is the same.
>>
>> Nowhere did I imply agreement with such an assessment.
>>
>> I don't think the possibilities for disaster are at all comparable in
>> scale.
>
> Okay, we can agree to disagree here.
>
> So mathematically we can compare:
>
> Global climate change
> Damage
> * Possible large extinction event
> * Human extinction say 50%?
> * slow (Decades, possibly a couple centuries)
>
> likelihood
> * Lets normalize this as the unit probability
> (NOTE: does not mean its probability is 1.)
>
> Asteroid impact
> Damage
> * Large extinction event
> * Human extinction >50%
> * fast (immediate then decades)
>
> Likelyhood
> * thousands less than global climate change
>
> This is the information we need to estimate the impact.
>>
>>> Can you do anything more than guess that the likelihood of
>>> a massive asteroid is greater than the probability that
>>> climate change is heading us all toward disaster?
>>>
>>> As pointed out earlier, the changes needed to reduce the likelihood
>>> and the effects of global climate change are changes we need to make
>>> anyway to move away from a fossil fuel energy economy.
>>
>> Okay, nukes (fission and/or fusion) or some new discovery.
>
> Fission has long been known to be just a bridging technology.
> (At least in the 70's when I studied the energy issue.)
>
> Fusion is the solution in the form of solar energy. We already
> have a working fusion reactor only 8 light minutes away.
>
>>
>> Wasting money on windmills isn't going to help any of the above
>> happen.
>
> We just need to design and build the conversion units:
> -hydro electric dams (most good locations already in use)
> -Windmills and tide mills
> -solar farms
> -other?
>
> Now at least we are discussing concrete actions that actually help
> the economy, not wasting money.
>
> Windmills may actually start to make money. At least investors
> are finding reasons to put money into building them. I just
> came back from vacation in florida. Passed a good sized solar
> farm while there.
>
>>
>> We shouldn't be burning hydrocarbons anyway. We need them for chemical
>> feedstocks.
>
> Interesting you did not say fossil fuels.
> Long term we need those hydrocarbons from other sources.
>>
>>> Status quo isn't going to cut it any more.
>>
>> Okay, let's have progress ... not a return to 17th century energy
>> sources.
>
> Exactly.
>>
>>> Enjoy,
>>
>> Likewise.
>
> Now this is how to discuss issues like this guys.
> Facts, not feelings. Information, not insults.
>
> Ed
>
agree!
lots of windmills near here, many do not have power lines hooked up to
them yet
I went to South point Hawaii, and saw the wind farm there it was in bad
shape, the salt water mist had caused a huge amount of corrosion, the
place went bankrupt, only 1 was working out of about 30. the place was
about 25 years old. they scrapped it.
and South point is the perfect location, strong wind most all the time
from the east, I walked over the Green Sand Beach, strong wind all the
time.
http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WMJKM_Kamaoa_Wind_Farms_South_Point_Hawaii
https://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/blog/2012/03/apollo-energy-removing-old-wind.html
they moved operation!--- Like to know what corrosion proof
designs they are using now
Pakini Nui Wind Farm.
The 21-megawatt facility, which is located just seven miles from the old
Kamaoa wind farm, began commercial production in April 2007.
About the Wind Farm:
The south point area of Hawaii is one of the best places in the world
for a wind farm because of its exceptionally strong and consistent trade
winds. As as result, Tawhiri Power LLC selected this location for the
Pakini Nui Wind Farm.
Construction of the wind farm began in August of 2006 and was completed
in early 2007. On April third, 2007 the wind farm began commercial
operation. There are a total of fourteen General Electric 1.5 Mega-Watt
SE turbines at Pakini Nui. These turbines can provide nearly 21
Mega-Watts of electricity for the Big Island of Hawaii.
The Pakini Nui Wind Farm is located 7 miles down South Point Road from
its junction with Route 11.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 20:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <u3fkfd1ohfb92u53be4sbnf50eq8ncobpa@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #685365 |
On Sun, 13 May 2018 21:01:48 -0500, Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> wrote: > ... the salt water mist had caused a huge amount of corrosion, the > place went bankrupt.... That was an error in engineering. Any shipbuilder can tell you that it ain't like building a high-rise in middle America, where appropriate materials can be ordered, off-the-shelf, from catalogs. Place like that, environmental chemistry becomes an important factor. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/apr/21/britain-set-for-first-coal-free-day-since-the-industrial-revolution That was a year ago. Engineers are our unsung heroes. -- Goat
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 11:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ac0ba72c-7c96-482a-992e-c51a143a4e08@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #685365 |
On Sunday, May 13, 2018 at 10:01:52 PM UTC-4, Sergio wrote: > On 5/13/2018 7:43 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: [] > > Now this is how to discuss issues like this guys. > > Facts, not feelings. Information, not insults. > > > > Ed > > > > agree! > > lots of windmills near here, many do not have power lines hooked up to > them yet > > I went to South point Hawaii, and saw the wind farm there it was in bad > shape, the salt water mist had caused a huge amount of corrosion, the > place went bankrupt, only 1 was working out of about 30. the place was > about 25 years old. they scrapped it. > > and South point is the perfect location, strong wind most all the time > from the east, I walked over the Green Sand Beach, strong wind all the > time. > > http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WMJKM_Kamaoa_Wind_Farms_South_Point_Hawaii I think I saw that wind farm too when I visited Hawaii a few years ago. But was it you that said wind turbines only last 25-30 years? Seems they do not plan for long term rebuilding. Kind of like the steel industry in the 1970's did not upgrade facilities. Result was European and Japanese steel mills built after WW2 were newer and more efficient. > > https://www.bizjournals.com/pacific/blog/2012/03/apollo-energy-removing-old-wind.html > > > they moved operation!--- Like to know what corrosion proof > designs they are using now > > Pakini Nui Wind Farm. > > The 21-megawatt facility, which is located just seven miles from the old > Kamaoa wind farm, began commercial production in April 2007. > > About the Wind Farm: > > The south point area of Hawaii is one of the best places in the world > for a wind farm because of its exceptionally strong and consistent trade > winds. As as result, Tawhiri Power LLC selected this location for the > Pakini Nui Wind Farm. > > Construction of the wind farm began in August of 2006 and was completed > in early 2007. On April third, 2007 the wind farm began commercial > operation. There are a total of fourteen General Electric 1.5 Mega-Watt > SE turbines at Pakini Nui. These turbines can provide nearly 21 > Mega-Watts of electricity for the Big Island of Hawaii. > > The Pakini Nui Wind Farm is located 7 miles down South Point Road from > its junction with Route 11. I must have seen the newer farm. But, hey, it looks like the management of Apollo might have their act together. They are still in the wind farm business. Interesting information. Thanks. ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 18:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <me8kfdh4dtqeao85fo7dhvkesicen2udrc@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #685331 |
On Sun, 13 May 2018 19:02:56 -0400, Wally W. wrote: >Does the "extensive" amount of climate data compared with the >relatively sparse data on prior impacts tell us we would be in deeper >doo-doo from driving SUVs or from the impact of a large asteroid? If you're an actuary working for an insurance company, the extent of the damage multiplied by its probability is important. You're setting insurance premiums. If you're living in the danger zone, it is merely the probability of the damage killing you personally which is important. You're trying not to die. So I guess it depends on why you want to know what you want to know. -- Goat
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 22:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <phhkfdhccgfe57ka8h5khg0ht7b9th4bt6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #685473 |
On Mon, 14 May 2018 18:57:08 -0500, Lofty Goat wrote: >On Sun, 13 May 2018 19:02:56 -0400, Wally W. wrote: > >>Does the "extensive" amount of climate data compared with the >>relatively sparse data on prior impacts tell us we would be in deeper >>doo-doo from driving SUVs or from the impact of a large asteroid? > >If you're an actuary working for an insurance company, the extent of the >damage multiplied by its probability is important. You're setting >insurance premiums. > >If you're living in the danger zone, it is merely the probability of the >damage killing you personally which is important. You're trying not to >die. > >So I guess it depends on why you want to know what you want to know. If you're trying to decide how to get the most bang for the taxpayers' buck in efforts to "save the planet," consider that the costs of *adapting* to climate change are manageable -- no massive prevention efforts are needed. There is no "adapting" to the impact of a planet-killer asteroid. Also consider the potential spin-offs from figuring out how to deliver enough energy to an asteroid to nudge it away from a collision course. The efficiency would need to be high. Knowing how to do that (and the things that lead up to it) would make new, useful technology available to humans all over the world. Then consider the potential spin-offs from figuring out how to make greenie brain farts bring suffering and misery to *other* people. That isn't useful to anyone who isn't already more equal than others.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 12:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2b073237-c86d-4d7b-8449-1108d2c830e6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #685503 |
On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 10:40:57 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote:
[]
>
> If you're trying to decide how to get the most bang for the taxpayers'
> buck in efforts to "save the planet," consider that the costs of
> *adapting* to climate change are manageable -- no massive prevention
> efforts are needed. There is no "adapting" to the impact of a
> planet-killer asteroid.
Adapting to climate change may require much higher costs than
you suggest here. It may require large population movements.
We currently do not know the full costs of either climate change
or asteroid strike. Both have costs that are a function of the
scale of change (Bigger => more $$$).
>
> Also consider the potential spin-offs from figuring out how to deliver
> enough energy to an asteroid to nudge it away from a collision course.
> The efficiency would need to be high. Knowing how to do that (and the
> things that lead up to it) would make new, useful technology available
> to humans all over the world.
>
> Then consider the potential spin-offs from figuring out how to make
> greenie brain farts bring suffering and misery to *other* people. That
> isn't useful to anyone who isn't already more equal than others.
Sorry, you cannot tout potential spin-offs of one side of the
equation only. Going to renewable sources can bring benefits
as well. Here's just one improvement:
distributed energy production (energy produced where needed)
with multiple potential benefits:
reduced or eliminated transmission loses.
reduced danger of disruption of power grid
by natural or human causes
Local production sources meaning local jobs
to build/maintain each source.
(And an indirect benefit: no fighting over the last
remaining fossils fuel sources.)
So please just at least try to be objective.
Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-15 21:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <6s3nfdtshott5vs13l6bff60vkcu8alagg@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #685615 |
On Tue, 15 May 2018 12:00:24 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote: >On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 10:40:57 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote: >[] >> >> If you're trying to decide how to get the most bang for the taxpayers' >> buck in efforts to "save the planet," consider that the costs of >> *adapting* to climate change are manageable -- no massive prevention >> efforts are needed. There is no "adapting" to the impact of a >> planet-killer asteroid. > >Adapting to climate change may require much higher costs than >you suggest here. It may require large population movements. >We currently do not know the full costs of either climate change >or asteroid strike. Both have costs that are a function of the >scale of change (Bigger => more $$$). > >> >> Also consider the potential spin-offs from figuring out how to deliver >> enough energy to an asteroid to nudge it away from a collision course. >> The efficiency would need to be high. Knowing how to do that (and the >> things that lead up to it) would make new, useful technology available >> to humans all over the world. >> >> Then consider the potential spin-offs from figuring out how to make >> greenie brain farts bring suffering and misery to *other* people. That >> isn't useful to anyone who isn't already more equal than others. > >Sorry, you cannot tout potential spin-offs of one side of the >equation only. Going to renewable sources can bring benefits >as well. Here's just one improvement: > distributed energy production (energy produced where needed) >with multiple potential benefits: > reduced or eliminated transmission loses. > reduced danger of disruption of power grid > by natural or human causes > Local production sources meaning local jobs > to build/maintain each source. >(And an indirect benefit: no fighting over the last >remaining fossils fuel sources.) > >So please just at least try to be objective. >Ed Loss of economy of scale and make-work efforts with multiple me-too mom-and-pop power companies is not progress. It reverses the division of labor that allows so much variety in what people do. Once upon a time, 90+% of people were farmers ... and they didn't have the internet, cars, refrigerators, etc. They were not "the good ole days" when life was harder and shorter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 06:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4f3024d4-578c-4c8f-bd61-9807209c4471@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #685708 |
On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 9:59:37 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote: > On Tue, 15 May 2018 12:00:24 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote: > > >On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 10:40:57 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote: > >> Also consider the potential spin-offs from figuring out how to deliver > >> enough energy to an asteroid to nudge it away from a collision course. > >> The efficiency would need to be high. Knowing how to do that (and the > >> things that lead up to it) would make new, useful technology available > >> to humans all over the world. > >> > >> Then consider the potential spin-offs from figuring out how to make > >> greenie brain farts bring suffering and misery to *other* people. That > >> isn't useful to anyone who isn't already more equal than others. > > > >Sorry, you cannot tout potential spin-offs of one side of the > >equation only. Going to renewable sources can bring benefits > >as well. Here's just one improvement: > > distributed energy production (energy produced where needed) > >with multiple potential benefits: > > reduced or eliminated transmission loses. > > reduced danger of disruption of power grid > > by natural or human causes > > Local production sources meaning local jobs > > to build/maintain each source. > >(And an indirect benefit: no fighting over the last > >remaining fossils fuel sources.) > > > >So please just at least try to be objective. > >Ed > > Loss of economy of scale and make-work efforts with multiple me-too > mom-and-pop power companies is not progress. It reverses the division > of labor that allows so much variety in what people do. And where did I mention "mom-and-pop" companies? I am arguing there can be smaller power sources but not necessarily micro-power sources. Coal and nuclear technology gets a boost from scale but the large size of these plants mean a small number of points of failure. City scale plants for example are be possible since the structure needed does not require isolating the plant far away. > > Once upon a time, 90+% of people were farmers ... and they didn't have > the internet, cars, refrigerators, etc. > > They were not "the good ole days" when life was harder and shorter. If you had left out the "not" above your sarcasm would be clearer. But in no way am I advocating for going back 200 years or so. I am trying to suggest progress forward, not back, and not our current fossil fuel economy. We have to be able to produce at least the same total power from renewable sources as we consume, because long term the fossil fuels run out. Whether that is 50 years or 300 years, it is still a lot less than the 10,000 years of recorded human history and miniscule compared to the roughly 1 million year history of homo sapiens. For long term energy production, status quo is not a solution. Ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-20 13:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <6i93gddvk446o7qje3ts4j72a01pjd3n0i@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #685928 |
On Thu, 17 May 2018 06:05:23 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote: >On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 9:59:37 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote: >> On Tue, 15 May 2018 12:00:24 -0700 (PDT), Edward Prochak wrote: >> >> >On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 10:40:57 PM UTC-4, Wally W. wrote: >> >> Also consider the potential spin-offs from figuring out how to deliver >> >> enough energy to an asteroid to nudge it away from a collision course. >> >> The efficiency would need to be high. Knowing how to do that (and the >> >> things that lead up to it) would make new, useful technology available >> >> to humans all over the world. >> >> >> >> Then consider the potential spin-offs from figuring out how to make >> >> greenie brain farts bring suffering and misery to *other* people. That >> >> isn't useful to anyone who isn't already more equal than others. >> > >> >Sorry, you cannot tout potential spin-offs of one side of the >> >equation only. Going to renewable sources can bring benefits >> >as well. Here's just one improvement: >> > distributed energy production (energy produced where needed) >> >with multiple potential benefits: >> > reduced or eliminated transmission loses. >> > reduced danger of disruption of power grid >> > by natural or human causes >> > Local production sources meaning local jobs >> > to build/maintain each source. >> >(And an indirect benefit: no fighting over the last >> >remaining fossils fuel sources.) >> > >> >So please just at least try to be objective. >> >Ed >> >> Loss of economy of scale and make-work efforts with multiple me-too >> mom-and-pop power companies is not progress. It reverses the division >> of labor that allows so much variety in what people do. > >And where did I mention "mom-and-pop" companies? > >I am arguing there can be smaller power sources but not necessarily >micro-power sources. Coal and nuclear technology gets a boost >from scale but the large size of these plants mean a small >number of points of failure. Thje boost from scale also allows a sufficient number of maintenance personnel, and a budget for their specialized training, to make it less likely that there will be failures at the points of vulnerability. The optimum scale for utility plants has evolved over decades of experience -- with an army of bean counters supported by the scale of the utility. >City scale plants for example are be possible since the structure >needed does not require isolating the plant far away. Making a bunch of city-size plants would return to configuration that existed before power plants on a modern scale were feasible, with the commensurate staffs for maintenance and bean-counting. >> Once upon a time, 90+% of people were farmers ... and they didn't have >> the internet, cars, refrigerators, etc. >> >> They were not "the good ole days" when life was harder and shorter. > >If you had left out the "not" above your sarcasm would be clearer. The sarcasm was in the quotes. It is a statement of fact that they were not the "good ole days" as some whistful greenies imagine the 1850s or sigh over a Normal Rockwell painting with charming horse-drawn carriages -- where no one is carrying a shovel and there are no horse droppings in the street. >But in no way am I advocating for going back 200 years or so. >I am trying to suggest progress forward, not back, and not our >current fossil fuel economy. > >We have to be able to produce at least the same total power >from renewable sources as we consume, because long term the >fossil fuels run out. Ultimately, no energy source is "renewable." Any form of solar energy (including wind and biomass, which are indirect forms of solar energy) is not renewable because the Sun has an expiration date. The universe also has an expiration date, in the form of "heat death." The best we can hope for is "practically inexhaustible" for a time frame long enough to develop another "practically inexhaustible" source ... or move to a different dimension. For a time frame of at least some number of decades from now, fossil fuels will remain "practically inexhaustible." If by the time fossil fuels become impractical for use on the current scale we develop fusion power, then the oceans will provide a "practically inexhaustible" source of fuel for a long time. > Whether that is 50 years or 300 years, >it is still a lot less than the 10,000 years of recorded >human history and miniscule compared to the roughly >1 million year history of homo sapiens. > >For long term energy production, status quo is not a solution. >Ed Where did I mention persisting with the status quo forever? By your estimate, we have maybe 50 to 300 years to figure out a better way to power civilization. We have limited resources to spend on that effort in the limited time remaining. Throwing money at windmills, and other greenie brain farts, is not a good use of resources toward solving the problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web