Next NASA Chief Nominee Doesn’t Believe in Climate Change

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

TX politicians are like most others. They bow to the wishes and campaign donations of the real estate developers and lobbyists, then kick the can down the road as far as making the hard decisions to fund massive infrastructure changes to prevent future flooding for weather events that may not happen. Perhaps Harvey will give them a new perspective, and they will finally pay for the required changes to the infrastructure. But, based on their past record, I would not hold my breath.
 
TX politicians are like most others. They bow to the wishes and campaign donations of the real estate developers and lobbyists, then kick the can down the road as far as making the hard decisions to fund massive infrastructure changes to prevent future flooding for weather events that may not happen.

Very true. Unfortunately, things are even worse for Houston now. The western side of the city, the former Katy prairie, has been developed. That prairie previously served as a massive water storage basin. Now that it has been developed with impervious surfaces, there is no place for the water to go. So now, new infrastructure to control flooding is going to be MUCH more expensive than it would if they had left some sections of that prairie undeveloped.
 
The good news is that fossil CO2 is not needed. The alternatives are there and available now. All that is needed is to switch our energy creation away from fossil fuel, albeit with some degree of urgency.

I'm curious as to how feasible this is right now, at present technology. In the past when I've read about hybrids, or crop-based ethanol fuel production, it didn't seem like the net effect was clearly positive (hybrid) or that crop-based would be both cost effective and adequate.

If it's 'just a matter of doing it,' is there some nation in the world that is? Seems like some country ought to be doing this if it's feasible, breaking their reliance on fossil fuels, if it's that practical.

richard.
 
@drrich2, It's a process. Many of the European countries have moved far ahead of the U.S. on this front. In particular, the Europe 2020 project aimed to get all EU countries to generate 20% of their electric needs by 2020. Already 11 countries have reached that target, so at least some of the EU members will exceed the target. Currently, the U.S. is at about 14%, and a chunk of that is from hydroelectric power that has been in place for many years.

Solar has tremendous promise. The cost of panels has dropped dramatically in the past 15 years, while the efficiency is climbing. A complete renewable energy system that has a substantial solar component is going to take some additional time to further improve efficiency and reduce costs. Biofuels also work great, but again the production costs are not yet as cheap as fossil fuels. But we are getting there!
 
@drrich2, It's a process. Many of the European countries have moved far ahead of the U.S. on this front. In particular, the Europe 2020 project aimed to get all EU countries to generate 20% of their electric needs by 2020. Already 11 countries have reached that target, so at least some of the EU members will exceed the target. Currently, the U.S. is at about 14%, and a chunk of that is from hydroelectric power that has been in place for many years.

Solar has tremendous promise. The cost of panels has dropped dramatically in the past 15 years, while the efficiency is climbing. A complete renewable energy system that has a substantial solar component is going to take some additional time to further improve efficiency and reduce costs. Biofuels also work great, but again the production costs are not yet as cheap as fossil fuels. But we are getting there!
Curious - do you drive an electric vehicle and have you converted your home to solar power?
 
You can't win against Mother Nature in the long run - improper coastal development is a main issue and, to me, if you choose to live in these areas (I don't for these exact reasons), you're playing with fire and will eventually get burned

Correct. City planners aren't doing a good job of smart development because then developers wouldn't make as much. Unfortunately, the average new home buyer in those areas has no clue and ends up paying the price.

Curious - do you drive an electric vehicle and have you converted your home to solar power?

As for my own carbon footprint: My wife drives an electric car. She has the longest commute of two of us, so we maximize the electric benefit by having her drive that car. We have not converted to solar power, yet, because we are planning to move within the next couple of years. Our new house will put me close enough to bike to work and at that point, we are also going to convert the new house to solar. I think carefully about where many of my everyday products come from. For example, beverages in glass bottles are heavy and therefore incur a high carbon footprint during transport. I opt to drink a beer that is brewed here in my home town. In many cases, I fill up reusable growlers right at the brewery near work.
 
Correct. City planners aren't doing a good job of smart development because then developers wouldn't make as much. Unfortunately, the average new home buyer in those areas has no clue and ends up paying the price.



As for my own carbon footprint: My wife drives an electric car. She has the longest commute of two of us, so we maximize the electric benefit by having her drive that car. We have not converted to solar power, yet, because we are planning to move within the next couple of years. Our new house will put me close enough to bike to work and at that point, we are also going to convert the new house to solar. I think carefully about where many of my everyday products come from. For example, beverages in glass bottles are heavy and therefore incur a high carbon footprint during transport. I opt to drink a beer that is brewed here in my home town. In many cases, I fill up reusable growlers right at the brewery near work.
Good - as I've found many people are hypocritical in this respect (esp. the visible "celebrities"). While, I honestly don't believe human activity is the primary cause of all our climate ills, it certainly is a factor. Many of the steps one would take to address it make sense and can actually save one money. Like you, I will be moving in a few years, so investing in solar would not make sense financially - hopefully, systems will be even cheaper then and storage batteries available and affordable by then.
 
opt to drink a beer that is brewed here in my home town. In many cases, I fill up reusable growlers right at the brewery near work.

I am sure you know this, but, brewing of beer is a very high waste process. You may have the container waste covered, but the brewing process typically wastes 5:1 water to production volume. Maybe some micro breweries have a better waste results, but it is my experience that small operations with smaller run size typically have higher waste in raw materials and production yields.

Regarding power, I am hoping that hydrogen fuel cell technology starts to improve. I know that hydrogen generation seems to be the sticking point, but a natural gas powered hydrogen fuel cell would sure have been nice during our recent power outages here.
 
@Murky Waters, I think @Skeptic14 has spoken to this before. Yes, science is conducted by humans and humans are fallible. Science is not perfect. It is, however, the best system humans have ever designed for the acquisition of knowledge. The beauty of science is that if bad science gets published, it is corrected rather quickly, due to the large number of independent investigators who work on the same problem.

Oh no, don't try and drag me into this, I've been doing such a good job of avoiding this thread! :D

How about this controversial assertion:

There are actual "science deniers" and there are actual ideologues with far more than science and data behind their beliefs and then there are other people.
 
Oh no, don't try and drag me into this, I've been doing such a good job of avoiding this thread! :D

Sorry Skeptic, even though we hold some different views I couldn't help but actually giving you a bit of a compliment!:wink:
 
https://www.shearwater.com/products/swift/

Back
Top Bottom