'Climate Change' and the coming 'Climate Lockdown'

Wait, they are drilling in the Okavango...god help them, that alone (with Africa country-tier infrastructure) is likely to destroy the wetlands the first time they have any sort of major accident, never mind the drought.

Fuck, enjoy those wetlands before they end up full of toxic byproducts of cut-rate oil drilling/cementing work.

Yeah...

Honestly, I'm starting to wonder if there's anything akin to an "Ecological Disasters and Their Consequences" thread around here? I know about the US Train Derailments thread, but in the interest of not cluttering up that one with news of disasters abroad, maybe I should start a new thread (assuming we don't already have one up).
 
Not sure it belongs in this thread, so the mods are free to tell me or move it elsewhere:


(Archived version here, for long-term preservation purposes.)

More specifically, they try to tie in man-made climate change with the more erratic rainfall patterns in the Okavango Delta, which is already undergoing oil drilling and exploration, as is. Definitely no climatologist, but I encourage anyone here with science credentials (e.g., @Bacle or @Bear Ribs) to comment, if so inclined.
The word you are looking for is Geologist. Someone who studies the Earth.

A "climatologist" is someone who got a degree in "climatology" which is "the study of man made global warming"

Weathermen are geologists, not climatologists.
The only job a climatologist has is to grift for the global warming scam.
Climatology is mostly like "gender studies" degree. Trash.
 
Finally some action against the "climate protesters".
> The road beneath was closed by police for fears over their safety

Should jail the police for shutting down traffic for 40 hours just to save those 2 idiots. should have just let people drive through and let them fall.

Speaking before his sentencing Trowland said: 'Marcus and I demonstrated what any two ordinary people will do, when the death screams of the world become unbearable.
brainwashed idiots
 
> The road beneath was closed by police for fears over their safety

Should jail the police for shutting down traffic for 40 hours just to save those 2 idiots. should have just let people drive through and let them fall.


brainwashed idiots
A good start, but it's not going to be enough to stop their fellow cult members; not when they have the power of self-righteousness on their side.
 

But scientists are learning that greenhouse gases, including methane, also absorb some of the sun's shortwave radiation. Recent estimates suggested that methane might contribute up to 15 percent more thermal energy to the atmosphere than previously thought, due to this additional shortwave absorption.


However, the new study reveals that methane's shortwave absorption has the opposite effect. This finding is based on a detailed analysis of the gas's absorption at various wavelengths.


The result is "counterintuitive," says climate scientist Robert Allen of the University of California, Riverside. It happens because of the way that methane's shortwave absorbance affects clouds in different layers of the atmosphere, Allen and colleagues' simulations suggest.


When methane absorbs shortwave radiation in the middle and upper troposphere, above about three kilometers, it further warms the air — leading to fewer clouds in that upper layer. And because methane absorbs shortwave radiation high up, less of that radiation penetrates down to the lower troposphere. This actually cools the lower troposphere, leading to more clouds in that layer.

These thicker low-level clouds reflect more of the sun's shortwave radiation back out to space — meaning that less of this solar radiation reaches Earth's surface, to be converted into longwave radiation.

Meanwhile, upper-level clouds, in addition to greenhouse gases, are known to absorb longwave radiation. So fewer of these clouds means that less of the longwave radiation emitted by Earth is captured in the atmosphere — and more of it escapes to space without contributing to climate change.


With methane's shortwave absorption, "you expect warming of the climate system," Allen says. "But these cloud adjustments actually overwhelm the heating due to absorption, leading to a cooling effect."


Allen and his colleagues conducted the study using a computational model of Earth's climate. When they took the traditional approach — considering only methane's longwave absorbance — they estimated that the gas has caused 0.2 degrees Celsius of warming since preindustrial times, out of 1.06 degrees C total warming. But when they also included shortwave absorbance, methane's contribution to warming fell to about 0.16 degrees C.

In addition to warming the planet, methane is also thought to increase global precipitation, due to greater evaporation of water with higher temperatures. But the researchers found that inclusion of shortwave absorbance also reduced methane's precipitation effect, from a predicted 0.3 percent increase in precipitation (based on longwave absorbance alone), down to an increase of about 0.18 percent.

TL;DR
The whole idea methane is a problem just took a huge hit, because it has counterintuitive effects when it is absorbing both long and short wavelengths of radiation in the different atmospheric layers and cloud decks, and may play an important part in cloud formation and precipitation patterns.

This is why actual field observations, and not just lab wonkery, is important for actually understand what different compounds do in our environment.


Also, another use for solar farms, that is counter-intuitive; they help cultivate desert microbial-mat crusts underneath, due to the tiny micro-climate they create. These microbial mats are the foundational ecosystem many other plants and animals in the American Southwest need to survive, so increased growth of them is a great secondary benefit of putting solar panels in desert regions.
 
The whole idea methane is a problem just took a huge hit, because it has counterintuitive effects when it is absorbing both long and short wavelengths of radiation in the different atmospheric layers and cloud decks, and may play an important part in cloud formation and precipitation patterns.
Watch that study get memory-hole'd.
Also, another use for solar farms, that is counter-intuitive; they help cultivate desert microbial-mat crusts underneath, due to the tiny micro-climate they create. These microbial mats are the foundational ecosystem many other plants and animals in the American Southwest need to survive, so increased growth of them is a great secondary benefit of putting solar panels in desert regions.
Wide-scale solar farms raise the ambient temperature and decrease annual rainfall in a region by making it too hot. If their plan is to turn the SW into a giant solar energy producing zone then it will create a blasted hellscape instead.

I'm getting my information on that from this:
 
TL;DR
The whole idea methane is a problem just took a huge hit, because it has counterintuitive effects when it is absorbing both long and short wavelengths of radiation in the different atmospheric layers and cloud decks, and may play an important part in cloud formation and precipitation patterns.
hmmm... so wait a minute.
sounds like all that war on methane was actually causing more bad weather (particularly drought) by lowering cloud formation, instead of improving things like they said.
 
Watch that study get memory-hole'd.

Wide-scale solar farms raise the ambient temperature and decrease annual rainfall in a region by making it too hot. If their plan is to turn the SW into a giant solar energy producing zone then it will create a blasted hellscape instead.

I'm getting my information on that from this:

Wide-scale is a relative term, as is 'decrease rainfall' issue (first I'd ever heard that claim).

You can get a decent amount of energy doing a few acres of solar panels here and there, close to the places it will get used (small town in the Southwest having a few acres of panels near town, or near industry) and avoid a lot of the issues with massive solar farms, as well as save on transmission cost by not placing the panels too far from where the energy is need.

The idea we'd cover the majority of the desert in panels, instead of small plots close to where it is needed, or close to existing transmission lines, is kinda a misdirection in how to think about solar and it's use.

Solar isn't perfect, however for passive power generation in remote areas, it's still rather hard to beat, and a lot of the desert areas in the US get plenty of sun. Add in now that the panel's can create beneficial micro-climates underneath for microbial mats, and the equation favoring panels in the desert just keeps looking better.
 
Point is, with the "conventional" set-up absolutely within reach now- in my case that 450W 12V solar array and a small electricity-producing windmill (roughly 3'), I will have light, refrigeration, and running water. I have a crank-up radio as well, had it since 2000. I also have a wood stove.

So even during an extended power outage I'll be all right. It may mean rationing things like using this laptop at times, but up here we get a lot of wind. The idea is not only energy independence, but to be ready so if there is a power failure I still can run water and flush a toilet and not be in the dark and have cold and ice. That's a given, some Amish have somewhat similar systems around here.

The main problem is that, as some have pointed out, the wind isn't always blowing and the sun ain't always shining- but does that mean it is of NO use? I have a Toyota Corolla, oh it cannot haul the trailer my Mennonite neighbor has, so is it a useless vehicle? With some common sense that off-the-grid power supply will serve. I live WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY out in the country, so I do have land out in the open- given how badly the weather can pound us up here why not get something good out of it?

Fact is, we should have been working on this since the OPEC fiasco of the 1970s, and yes I was there to see it. "Drill here for oil-" sure, the corporations shafting us at the pump will thank us by greatly lowering fuel prices...I'm sure. At best they'll lower the prices at the pump by, say, 50 cents, knowing people will forget how they boosted the price during the early 2000s and think they are getting a bargain.

Even if those energy experiments yield at the most say, 40W, figure 24x40 that's 960W total (I sort of figure it on a 24-hour basis like money- it's easier). On a just-in-time model that will run a couple of lights, a small refrigerator, and a small fan- if you charge small D-cell batteries indirectly you get light that way. It's a start because what's stopping me from building another such array?

Look, at least I'm going to give it a whirl. The worst that can happen is I'm out a few dollars and hours.
 
The main problem is that, as some have pointed out, the wind isn't always blowing and the sun ain't always shining- but does that mean it is of NO use? I have a Toyota Corolla, oh it cannot haul the trailer my Mennonite neighbor has, so is it a useless vehicle? With some common sense that off-the-grid power supply will serve. I live WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY out in the country, so I do have land out in the open- given how badly the weather can pound us up here why not get something good out of it?

My reply is "For a city, it doesn't work."


There are specific places and times it's useful, but not as a replacement for Mains power.
 


Surprisingly, the New York State ban likely will be enacted less than three weeks after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco struck down an ordinance enacted by the City of Berkeley that banned the construction of natural gas infrastructure.

The upcoming New York law completely ignores the Ninth Circuit ruling. New York is in the Second Circuit, so the Berkeley ruling does not necessarily control what will happen in that different federal Court when New York’s law is challenged (and rest assured, it will be). However, it is a brazen “in your face” challenge to the judges sitting in the Ninth Circuit. Indeed, the Ninth Circuit was very direct in its ruling. Commenting on the Berkeley ban, which didn’t outlaw natural gas directly but instead only new infrastructure, the Court said:
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top