25 Climate Change Deaths In California

[PoliTalker]

Hello T. A. Gardner,

I agree. The safe route is what works. We shift to natural gas and nuclear for electrical power and move towards using hydrogen as our portable fuel for motor vehicles. Solar and wind are proven--PROVEN--expensive and unworkable solutions for electrical power. Battery cars remain a niche industry as they always have been and will likely always be. The US has within its borders sufficient uranium and thorium to supply the country with energy for over 1000 years at our current levels of use. I suspect long before then something better, like fusion will come along...

We need solutions that work. What I propose above would work and dramatically reduce not just CO2 emissions but would reduce the cost of electricity for hundreds of millions. Solar and wind won't do that.

We could implement changes to flight paths in a matter of months to eliminate or reduce contrails at very little cost.

Instead, we get the most vocal calls on this wanting things like the totally unworkable and utterly idiotic New Green Deal.

Thanks for your well considered view. Totally agreed on safe nuclear. I am drawn to the Traveling Wave Reactor design. Bill Gates has put a lot of resources into R&D. It uses the spent fuel from old tech dangerous reactor designs. It can't have a melt down. The only thing holding it back is our regulatory agencies are not equipped to approve it because the technology is so different. That is a hump we need to get over.

Disagreed on electric motive power. The R&D there is not static. I think we will crack that resource wide open and solve many of the problems holding that back from widespread use. Wind and solar are free energy. All we have to do is figure out how to capture it and store it efficiently. Electric motors have few moving parts, last far longer than combustion. It is s technology we would be foolish to not pursue.

Contrails. Rerouting increases fuel burn. Cleaner fuel is needed, and ultimately other options must be pursued. High speed trains are a lure. We have been left behind in that area of technology. It would be very good for us to catch up. Science and engineering are our friends in the quest to fulfill our needs while minimizing our footprint.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Hello T. A. Gardner,



Thanks for your well considered view. Totally agreed on safe nuclear. I am drawn to the Traveling Wave Reactor design. Bill Gates has put a lot of resources into R&D. It uses the spent fuel from old tech dangerous reactor designs. It can't have a melt down. The only thing holding it back is our regulatory agencies are not equipped to approve it because the technology is so different. That is a hump we need to get over.

There are a number of very safe designs. The CANDU for example can run on thorium as well as uranium making it attractive.

Disagreed on electric motive power. The R&D there is not static. I think we will crack that resource wide open and solve many of the problems holding that back from widespread use. Wind and solar are free energy. All we have to do is figure out how to capture it and store it efficiently. Electric motors have few moving parts, last far longer than combustion. It is s technology we would be foolish to not pursue.

Battery technology is a dead end. The chemistry of batteries cannot be gotten around. That science is well known. The fuel cell using hydrogen is the best alternative. It is 100% green and can be integrated into our current distribution and use system. Yes, there are problems with storage that aren't completely solved, yet. Those will get solved and the more it is used the better and cheaper the technology will become.

Contrails. Rerouting increases fuel burn. Cleaner fuel is needed, and ultimately other options must be pursued. High speed trains are a lure. We have been left behind in that area of technology. It would be very good for us to catch up. Science and engineering are our friends in the quest to fulfill our needs while minimizing our footprint.

High speed rail for large countries like the US or Russia is a step backwards. It works fine in smaller countries but the cost of the rail lines and right-of-ways gets prohibitive when the lines get long like they would be in the US. Building airports and using aircraft with their much higher travel speeds is the best solution. While aircraft would still have to burn fossil fuel for the near future, eliminating contrails while greatly reducing other forms of CO2 is an acceptable situation.

Look at the issue here: You have say an LA to Vegas high speed rail system that makes a few stops in between. Let's say the overall trip takes 4 hours. Flying takes 1 hour. Driving takes about 6 to 8. While you save over driving, flying is far more attractive. It takes far less time and the waits at both ends at terminals would be comparable. If you assume the wait time is 1 to 2 hours total, the train trip, door-to-door, approaches that of driving and you gain the advantage of having a vehicle at your disposal if you drive. The train becomes an unattractive alternative.
When you start talking transcontinental distances, the train is simply so bad an alternative it won't be used. Flying is far faster. Now we're talking hours on a plane versus days on a train. That won't fly with business for a second. Even persons like tourists may not like the train option wanting to spend more time at the destination rather than travelling.

US passenger train service died out for a reason and it had everything to do with how inefficient it became compared to alternatives.

 

[archives]

Wow, a real exchange ^ on this forum, and without any personal attacks, kudos to both of you

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello T. A. Gardner,

There are a number of very safe designs. The CANDU for example can run on thorium as well as uranium making it attractive.



Battery technology is a dead end. The chemistry of batteries cannot be gotten around. That science is well known. The fuel cell using hydrogen is the best alternative. It is 100% green and can be integrated into our current distribution and use system. Yes, there are problems with storage that aren't completely solved, yet. Those will get solved and the more it is used the better and cheaper the technology will become.



High speed rail for large countries like the US or Russia is a step backwards. It works fine in smaller countries but the cost of the rail lines and right-of-ways gets prohibitive when the lines get long like they would be in the US. Building airports and using aircraft with their much higher travel speeds is the best solution. While aircraft would still have to burn fossil fuel for the near future, eliminating contrails while greatly reducing other forms of CO2 is an acceptable situation.

Look at the issue here: You have say an LA to Vegas high speed rail system that makes a few stops in between. Let's say the overall trip takes 4 hours. Flying takes 1 hour. Driving takes about 6 to 8. While you save over driving, flying is far more attractive. It takes far less time and the waits at both ends at terminals would be comparable. If you assume the wait time is 1 to 2 hours total, the train trip, door-to-door, approaches that of driving and you gain the advantage of having a vehicle at your disposal if you drive. The train becomes an unattractive alternative.
When you start talking transcontinental distances, the train is simply so bad an alternative it won't be used. Flying is far faster. Now we're talking hours on a plane versus days on a train. That won't fly with business for a second. Even persons like tourists may not like the train option wanting to spend more time at the destination rather than travelling.

US passenger train service died out for a reason and it had everything to do with how inefficient it became compared to alternatives.

If a new clean biofuel for jets could be developed which could mitigate the impact of contrails that would help.

But there is still something to be said for trains. Consider a full-day business trip. It turns into three days with travel. The worker does the travel the day before, gets a hotel, sleeps, gets up, attends a day of business, goes back to the hotel, sleeps again, gets up the next day and flies home, not getting back until most of the third day is shot.

The train could combine the travel and the hotel room. The worker arrives at the train station near the end of the day, boards, has a nice meal, some entertainment, sleeps in a private cabin for the night, gets up at the destination, has breakfast, attends the day of business, returns to the train station, boards, has a nice meal, some entertainment, sleeps in a private cabin, arrives the next day back at origination ready for work again.

3 days shot with the "quicker" air travel, compared to 1 day for the far more comfortable train trip.

The road warrior with a brain would prefer the train.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello archives,

Wow, a real exchange ^ on this forum, and without any personal attacks, kudos to both of you

Thank you.

It's nice.

Mutual respect makes the difference. It's OK to disagree. That's no reason for hatred or vitriol. That stuff really gets old. It's habitual. Participants become desensitized to it, think nothing of it, but it still hurts.

Once that cycle is broken, it gets easier and easier to make civil discourse the habit. That's a good habit. I originally tried it as an experiment, just out of curiosity, telling myself I needed a month to really get a good feel for it, get past the old habits. That was long ago on a distant forum.

Well, of course you know how it came out. At the end of the month I didn't want to go back. I made civil discourse with mutual respect my new standard. That was the frame of mind I wrote my Signature in. I can't see ever going back to flame wars. It's just so nice without all that garbage. To me, that stuff is just boring. I'd rather make better use of my time. That's why I filter it ALL out.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Hello T. A. Gardner,



If a new clean biofuel for jets could be developed which could mitigate the impact of contrails that would help.

But there is still something to be said for trains. Consider a full-day business trip. It turns into three days with travel. The worker does the travel the day before, gets a hotel, sleeps, gets up, attends a day of business, goes back to the hotel, sleeps again, gets up the next day and flies home, not getting back until most of the third day is shot.

The train could combine the travel and the hotel room. The worker arrives at the train station near the end of the day, boards, has a nice meal, some entertainment, sleeps in a private cabin for the night, gets up at the destination, has breakfast, attends the day of business, returns to the train station, boards, has a nice meal, some entertainment, sleeps in a private cabin, arrives the next day back at origination ready for work again.

3 days shot with the "quicker" air travel, compared to 1 day for the far more comfortable train trip.

The road warrior with a brain would prefer the train.

Today, its more like this: Take the "red eye" to where you're flying to, sleep on the plane. Conduct your business, then take an evening flight back home napping on the plane. That's the reality of modern business like it or not. Aircraft business seating has become quite luxurious too.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello T. A. Gardner,

Today, its more like this: Take the "red eye" to where you're flying to, sleep on the plane. Conduct your business, then take an evening flight back home napping on the plane. That's the reality of modern business like it or not. Aircraft business seating has become quite luxurious too.

Workers doing that would love to have the train option with the chance to sleep in a real bed and take a shower. The freedom to move about during travel is so much more relaxing. Also, train schedules are less impacted by weather, thus more reliable. In some nations, clocks can be set by the arrival of trains. American flyers are well acquainted with planes being behind schedule, having to run through the airport with the carry-on to make a connection. Nobody likes being crammed into those tiny airplane seats either. Convicts, Cattle and Sardines. That's the experience. First, it's assume the position, as if a Convict, then get herded down the chutes like a Cattle Call toward the plane. Finally get packed in the aluminum sausage like Sardines. Not a chance a big guy even fits in a 'seatlet.' His shoulders imposing upon whomever is unlucky enough to occupy the next seat. Hope he doesn't smell bad. Only 'special' people can afford the upgrade. Most are in third class. 'Comfortable' is not an apt description. Sardines.

People would relish a better traveling experience.

Ask Joe Biden about trains.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Scientists have found a “lack of correlation between late summer/autumn wildfires” and “summer precipitation or temperature” in coastal California. In fact, “there is no long-term trend in the number of fires over coastal California” in the last 50 years (Mass and Ovens, 2019).

https://journals.ametsoc.org/bams/a...-Northern-California-Wildfires-of-8-9-October

 

[PoliTalker]

Joe Biden would favor efficient modern trains.

Joe Biden understands their value.

Joe Biden rode the train to work every day in Congress after his wife and small daughter were killed in a car wreck so he could take care of his grieved small children who lost their mother.

They called him 'Amtrak Joe,' and he did this for years, out of total family dedication so he could be home every night and be a good Dad.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Joe Biden would favor efficient modern trains.

Joe Biden understands their value.

Joe Biden rode the train to work every day in Congress after his wife and small daughter were killed in a car wreck so he could take care of his grieved small children who lost their mother.

They called him 'Amtrak Joe,' and he did this for years, out of total family dedication so he could be home every night and be a good Dad.

So, he's an outmoded politician in favor of an outmoded transportation system...? Nice.

The value of (passenger) trains is summed up in a picture....

 

[Into the Night]

If a new clean biofuel for jets could be developed which could mitigate the impact of contrails that would help.

The modern jet engine is the most fuel efficient engine developed for miles traveled per pound. Contrails are water vapor, created by burning fuel in the engine. Secondary contrails can occur off the wingtip vortices as high pressure air from under the wing meets low pressure air at the top of the wing at the wing tip, effectively squeezing out moisture from the air. Contrails are liquid water squeezed out of the air, either by compressors in a jet engine, or by wingtip vortices. Burning hydrocarbons also create water as exhaust.

But there is still something to be said for trains.

Trains are slow and impractical for the huge expanse between cities in most of the U.S. They are great for freight, however, if time isn't a major factor in it's delivery. Great for that bulk freight like coal, shipping containers of imports, grain, etc. The modern locomotive is the most efficient engine in terms of weight moved per mile. Both engines use oil for fuel (kerosene for jet engines and diesel oil for locomotives).

Consider a full-day business trip. It turns into three days with travel.

Why would anyone waste three days on a one day trip in business??

The worker does the travel the day before, gets a hotel, sleeps, gets up, attends a day of business, goes back to the hotel, sleeps again, gets up the next day and flies home, not getting back until most of the third day is shot.

Fly there, do your meeting, and fly back. Same day. Be home with your family that very evening. A private plane makes that even easier.

The train could combine the travel and the hotel room.

No hotel room needed with a one day business trip.

The worker arrives at the train station near the end of the day, boards, has a nice meal, some entertainment, sleeps in a private cabin for the night, gets up at the destination, has breakfast, attends the day of business, returns to the train station, boards, has a nice meal, some entertainment, sleeps in a private cabin, arrives the next day back at origination ready for work again.

You could always ride your horse to work too. Saddle up your good buddy, enjoy the sun as you trot along the road to your job, get their by the time everyone else is going to lunch, get fired for showing up late, and trot back home to enjoy your retirement, then get fined by the city for leaving horse droppings everywhere.

3 days shot with the "quicker" air travel, compared to 1 day for the far more comfortable train trip.

You are reversing your own numbers.

The road warrior with a brain would prefer the train.

Is they why most of them fly?

 

[Into the Night]

Hello T. A. Gardner,



Workers doing that would love to have the train option with the chance to sleep in a real bed and take a shower. The freedom to move about during travel is so much more relaxing. Also, train schedules are less impacted by weather, thus more reliable. In some nations, clocks can be set by the arrival of trains. American flyers are well acquainted with planes being behind schedule, having to run through the airport with the carry-on to make a connection. Nobody likes being crammed into those tiny airplane seats either. Convicts, Cattle and Sardines. That's the experience. First, it's assume the position, as if a Convict, then get herded down the chutes like a Cattle Call toward the plane. Finally get packed in the aluminum sausage like Sardines. Not a chance a big guy even fits in a 'seatlet.' His shoulders imposing upon whomever is unlucky enough to occupy the next seat. Hope he doesn't smell bad. Only 'special' people can afford the upgrade. Most are in third class. 'Comfortable' is not an apt description. Sardines.

People would relish a better traveling experience.

Ask Joe Biden about trains.

Take a train if you want (assuming there IS one going where you need to go). You don't get to dictate what mode of transportation people are going to use. You are not the king. The market decides. You don't. Most business people fly.

 

[Into the Night]

Joe Biden would favor efficient modern trains.

Hiding Joe doesn't get to decide what people will use for transportation. He is not the king.

Joe Biden understands their value.

Joe understands very little. You should see him without a teleprompter. Even WITH a teleprompter he manages to fuck up.

Joe Biden rode the train to work every day in Congress after his wife and small daughter were killed in a car wreck so he could take care of his grieved small children who lost their mother.

So?

They called him 'Amtrak Joe,' and he did this for years, out of total family dedication so he could be home every night and be a good Dad.

A commuter train is not replacing air travel. Special pleading fallacy.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello T. A. Gardner,

So, he's an outmoded politician in favor of an outmoded transportation system...? Nice.

The value of (passenger) trains is summed up in a picture....

Looks like a construction project in progress, building a better tomorrow. Like we could be with high speed trains. Better. More options. More efficient. More comfortable. More reliable.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Hello T. A. Gardner,

Looks like a construction project in progress, building a better tomorrow. Like we could be with high speed trains. Better. More options. More efficient. More comfortable. More reliable.

It's a bit of the remains of the failed California multi-billion dollar boondoggle high speed rail route through the Imperial Valley. It went from a planned $33 billion to $77 billion and the bits completed amounted to less than 5% of the route.

 

[IBDaMann]

But none of those is contained in working scientific paper extrapolations based on data of current observable trends.

... nor is anything you wrote. The totally undefined has no power to do anything.

 

[Ralph]

California is up to 25 deaths from the Human-Caused Climate Change Wildfires.

"A new analysis published this week by the National Bureau of Economic Research suggests that, if left unchecked, climate change could drive temperatures up to the point where they would lead to 85 deaths per 100,000 people globally per year by the end of the century. That’s more than are currently killed by all infectious diseases across the globe."

Time: Climate Change Could Cause More Annual Deaths Than Infectious Disease by 2100

Bullshit..........Climate change my ass............5 gallon gasoline can armed arsonist terrorists have been caught red handed starting many of these fires....and then released by Soros funded DAs to go back on the rampage again. One individual was caught....released and then charged with starting at least 5 more fires.



Even with the spinning coming from leftist news sources....the truth comes out usually near the end of the article after they have spent 95% of the article declaring We are not seeing any indications of a MASS politically influenced arson campaign, but......"A number of wildfires in Washington, Oregon, and California are now being considered ARSON....and several ARSONISTS are already in jail - while there are others on the run." SPIN BABY SPIN. Yeah those systematic racist police are guilty of conspiracy..... Climate change? It could never be the fact that the federal dollars donated via US TAXPAYERS across the nation was misused and none of these left wing managed forests have been managed correctly for almost 3 decades now in allowing the brush undergrowth to go unchecked......making these unmanaged forests nothing but dried out match boxes just waiting for a spark and the proper wind. Now these winds that come every year are due to climate change?

www.lawenforcementtoday.com/sources-series-of-wildfires-may-be-coordinated-and-planned-attack/

 

[cancel2 2022]

California is up to 25 deaths from the Human-Caused Climate Change Wildfires.

"A new analysis published this week by the National Bureau of Economic Research suggests that, if left unchecked, climate change could drive temperatures up to the point where they would lead to 85 deaths per 100,000 people globally per year by the end of the century. That’s more than are currently killed by all infectious diseases across the globe."

Time: Climate Change Could Cause More Annual Deaths Than Infectious Disease by 2100

This one is so full of shit, it's almost a continuous stream of brown stuff!

 

[Lightbringer]

Climate change. LMFAO. I think the citrus growers may want to have a word with this bright bulb.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Try for over 200 years. Coal burning for heat started as early as the 15th century and widespread use occurred by the beginning of the 19th Century.



A bit more of nothing is still nothing. The percentage in the Earth's atmosphere is less than 1% CO2-- well less than one-percent.

More like 0.04% to be precise.

Correlation doesn't mean causation necessarily

Same thing.

In some places. In others glaciers are growing.

Has been about 2 to 3 mm per year. That's really nothing.

Again, linking this to anthropomorphic causes is tenuous at best.

This hasn't happened. The number of these has remained relatively constant over longer periods including the present.

They also told us that if we stopped using CFC's the hole in the ozone layer at the South Pole would disappear. We did, and it's now well past their predication of closure date but the hole's still there...
Just remember...
Plate tectonics was discovered in the 1950's
The Van Allen belt was discovered in the late 50's
We didn't know what the bottom of the oceans looked like in the 1940's

What we don't know is a vast amount of stuff. What we do know isn't and much of it is of recent orgin.

Not due to Gorebal Warming. Due to fires coming to where people are.

By the way, ponder this:

The Gorebal Warming crowd tells us this warming started in earnest in the 1950's or 60's and has accelerated. Aircraft produced contrails started occurring in the 1940's and have expanded to where they create a near permanent haze over most of the Northern Hemisphere year round now. Water is a much better greenhouse gas than CO2. The albedo of the planet changed with increased cloud cover. Cloud cover acts as a much better insulator trapping heat longer than CO2 does.

Fixing this would require simple and cheap changes to air travel, but it wouldn't aid a political agenda based on Gorebal Warming...

.