Page 40 of 43 FirstFirst ... 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 LastLast
Results 976 to 1,000 of 1057

Thread: Climate Change

  1. #976
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Stumptown
    Posts
    9,127
    Quote Originally Posted by CoorsLight99 View Post
    Anyone who blames the river/lake drying up on 'carbon emmissions' or global warming and not too many humans using the water is a moron.
    A 22 year megadrought fueled by climate change sure sounds like a good reason for a water shortage.

    https://blog.ucsusa.org/pablo-ortiz/...rn-us-drought/

  2. #977
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    10,785
    Quote Originally Posted by CoorsLight99 View Post
    Anyone who blames the river/lake drying up on 'carbon emmissions' or global warming and not too many humans using the water is a moron.
    Pretty sure most of the water each human uses is pretty immediately returned to the ecosystem as water. The shit people burn is converted to other elements fucking shit up and disrupting the balance of our atmosphere.
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  3. #978
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    20,987
    Quote Originally Posted by CoorsLight99 View Post
    Anyone who blames the river/lake drying up on 'carbon emmissions' or global warming and not too many humans using the water is a moron.
    I think someone has had one too many nocturnal "emmissions".

  4. #979
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    754
    Quote Originally Posted by CoorsLight99 View Post
    Anyone who blames the river/lake drying up on 'carbon emmissions' or global warming and not too many humans using the water is a moron.
    Can't it be both?

  5. #980
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    6,706
    So now the climate thread is the place for biased jong trolls...

  6. #981
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    the ham
    Posts
    12,074
    Quote Originally Posted by CoorsLight99 View Post
    I mean this is a large body of water that is vanishing in virtually no time whatsoever. What is the temperature again required for water to turn into air? 212 degrees?
    Umm... no. Boiling occurs when the liquid vapor pressure reaches the ambient barometric pressure, but water evaporates at all temperatures above freezing. Otherwise, it would never dry after it rains.

    But the chart of water evaporation vs temperature isn't a straight line, it's an upward curve.

  7. #982
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    2,109
    Quote Originally Posted by CoorsLight99 View Post
    I mean this is a large body of water that is vanishing in virtually no time whatsoever. What is the temperature again required for water to turn into air? 212 degrees? The air being warmer hasn't dried the river up.
    Hoo boy. I'm just gonna scroll past and pretend I didn't see anything...

  8. #983
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    In a van... down by the river
    Posts
    10,588
    I think the proper response to this moranity is:

  9. #984
    Join Date
    Jun 2020
    Posts
    2,532
    It can be true that both climate change and too much human consumption are contributing to the problem.

    Re:consumption-

    In 1960, U.S. Supreme Court Special Master Simon Rifkind made a fundamental mistake in calculating how much water was then available in the Colorado River Basin, and how much might be available in the future. The court, in its ruling in the case of Arizona v. California, accepted Rifkind’s math. The consequence is a shortage on the Colorado River relative to the expectations of the nine states (seven in the U.S., two in Mexico) that share it.But it also was a fundamental mistake for the water users in the Lower Colorado River Basin to not recognize the flaw in Rifkind’s math and act accordingly. That second mistake, more than Rifkind’s, is the cause of our current troubles.

    https://www.inkstain.net/2013/11/sim...olorado-river/

    And yeah, evaporation isn’t the same as boiling. Maybe read about sublimation - you’re mind will be blown!

  10. #985
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    404
    Quote Originally Posted by CoorsLight99 View Post
    I mean this is a large body of water that is vanishing in virtually no time whatsoever. What is the temperature again required for water to turn into air? 212 degrees? The air being warmer hasn't dried the river up.

    Now has human behavior that led to the river drying up also contributed to climate change sure but rearranging the dominos to fit a narrative is stupid. Human/corporate consumption depleted the river.

    I don't like to use the word overpopulated because in many respects we need a growing population and every generation has used the same 'US is full go back to where you came from' rhetoric but too many people/companies use the CO River as their primary watersource. This is a pretty crazy and serious ecological problem the easiest solution (ecologically not socially) likely would be to disperse humans to more moist climates and different water sources without leaving the USA be it Alaska, Midwest, Southeast, Northeast.

    But I'm not even really trying to fix the problem just using common sense to identify it. Just because a well had enough water for a town of 100 people doesn't mean its enough when there are 10,000 people relying on it.
    A common sense solution 🤪
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P0q4o58pKwA

    Although I guess you skipped earth science in school.
    "It's only steep if you're backseat"

  11. #986
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    20,987
    Quote Originally Posted by CoorsLight99 View Post
    Anyone who blames the river/lake drying up on 'carbon emmissions' or global warming and not too many humans using the water is a moron.
    If you read this sentence as "anyone who blames the river/lake drying up ONLY on carbon emissions or global warming and not on too many humans using the water as well is a moron" then it makes sense. Don't think that's what they meant though. And around here it's "moran", JONG.

  12. #987
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,729
    The first Colorado River basin users that should be allocated less are the users that draw water from outside the Colorado river basin.

    I don't give a shit that they had a say back in 1922. Look at the map, its not their water.

    These powerful groups should be the first to tighten their belts considering they aren't taking their native water, but rather stealing it from a basin over.

    -Denver
    -California Agriculture in the Imperial valley
    -LA (desalination plants anyone???)

    Why nobody singles out these users is odd to me.




    Name:  ColoradoRiver-GPI-072515-1jpg-Water-gpi-052716jpg-1.jpeg
Views: 211
Size:  112.6 KB

  13. #988
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    10,785
    $200K? How much were the first Teslas? If this can be scaled up to demand and price cut in half, we've got something right??

    Hydrogen-powered Ford Ranger hits the road
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  14. #989
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    2 hours from anything
    Posts
    10,109
    Quote Originally Posted by Percy Rideout View Post
    The first Colorado River basin users that should be allocated less are the users that draw water from outside the Colorado river basin.

    I don't give a shit that they had a say back in 1922. Look at the map, its not their water.

    These powerful groups should be the first to tighten their belts considering they aren't taking their native water, but rather stealing it from a basin over.

    -Denver
    -California Agriculture in the Imperial valley
    -LA (desalination plants anyone???)

    Why nobody singles out these users is odd to me.




    Name:  ColoradoRiver-GPI-072515-1jpg-Water-gpi-052716jpg-1.jpeg
Views: 211
Size:  112.6 KB
    So you want to completely change the water rights of America and have it declared that only people and land that are located in a watershed have a right to any of its water?

  15. #990
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    7,790
    Don’t forget MX

  16. #991
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    20,987
    Seems to me that hydrogen fuel cells are a much better solution than batteries. You would be able to refuel the way you refuel with gasoline. A lot of infrastructure would have to be built. Probably a good solution for large scale solar/wind back up as well. For solar backup for individual houses batteries still seem more practical.
    Unlike with batteries there is no need for unsustainable minerals. Fortunately, water is easy to obtain and there is plenty of it.

    Oh, wait.

    But seriously, currently most hydrogen comes from natural gas, which means you have to do something with the CO2 that results. Eventually it needs to be produced by solar powered electrolysis and doing that on a large scale is a ways off.

  17. #992
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,729
    Quote Originally Posted by neufox47 View Post
    So you want to completely change the water rights of America and have it declared that only people and land that are located in a watershed have a right to any of its water?
    Playing god and physically moving water out of its native watershed effects the local environment in a multitude of negative ways, and since this entire thread is about climate change and the environment, I'm here to say that due to those negative effects, these should be the first user groups to tighten their belts.

    Now that you mention it though, we do need a complete rework of the water rights in the American Southwest as the current agreement is clearly not working.

  18. #993
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    10,785
    Quote Originally Posted by Percy Rideout View Post
    Playing god and physically moving water out of its native watershed effects the local environment in a multitude of negative ways, and since this entire thread is about climate change and the environment, I'm here to say that due to those negative effects, these should be the first user groups to tighten their belts.

    Now that you mention it though, we do need a complete rework of the water rights in the American Southwest as the current agreement is clearly not working.
    But wait... isn't that same God supposed to save the righteous from the other ill effects of burning fossil fuels, not having to wear masks during a pandemic.. pretty much everything except needing a gun to defend yourself?
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  19. #994
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Stumptown
    Posts
    9,127
    Quote Originally Posted by old goat View Post
    Seems to me that hydrogen fuel cells are a much better solution than batteries. You would be able to refuel the way you refuel with gasoline. A lot of infrastructure would have to be built. Probably a good solution for large scale solar/wind back up as well. For solar backup for individual houses batteries still seem more practical.
    Unlike with batteries there is no need for unsustainable minerals. Fortunately, water is easy to obtain and there is plenty of it.

    Oh, wait.

    But seriously, currently most hydrogen comes from natural gas, which means you have to do something with the CO2 that results. Eventually it needs to be produced by solar powered electrolysis and doing that on a large scale is a ways off.
    I don't know enough about this stuff, but I was wondering if you could build a potential energy system to store power in your home. Get like 500 gallons of water, or a bunch of lead, or something, hook it up to a motor and when you have extra power, crank it up off the ground. When you need power, let the weight down and spin some sort of generator. In theory, if things got bad, you could hand crank the weight up and have more power for your house. Hell if you used water, you could drink it in a pinch, too.

    i have no idea how high/how much weight you'd need to make this practical.

  20. #995
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,352
    That reminds me of this power generation facility in Michigan. My daughter interned for the company that ran it and got the tour. Pretty cool concept to use the excess nighttime power to refill the pond for daily generation.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludi...ge_Power_Plant


    Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk

  21. #996
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,729
    Quote Originally Posted by SumJongGuy View Post
    But wait... isn't that same God supposed to save the righteous from the other ill effects of burning fossil fuels, not having to wear masks during a pandemic.. pretty much everything except needing a gun to defend yourself?
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	EhClvGZXkAI8Puz.jpg 
Views:	52 
Size:	141.2 KB 
ID:	427890

    Waste our time, stray from the topic at hand, and provide an ill informed opinion. Congratulations on the ignorance trifecta!

  22. #997
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    On the beach somewhere
    Posts
    634
    Quote Originally Posted by Supermoon View Post
    I don't know enough about this stuff, but I was wondering if you could build a potential energy system to store power in your home. Get like 500 gallons of water, or a bunch of lead, or something, hook it up to a motor and when you have extra power, crank it up off the ground. When you need power, let the weight down and spin some sort of generator. In theory, if things got bad, you could hand crank the weight up and have more power for your house. Hell if you used water, you could drink it in a pinch, too.

    i have no idea how high/how much weight you'd need to make this practical.
    I firmly believe that mechanical storage is part of the solution. Examples include: pumped hydroelectric (your idea,) compressed air energy storage, flywheels, and ideas like - cranes lifting up heavy objects, then letting them down. The benefit versus chemical battery storage is longer life, more cycles in lifetime, and - as a result - better "energy stored over energy invested." See chart from this study

    Note the massive size of lowagriz's example. You need a lot of water and a good height difference.

    Let's explore your example. This is basic kinematics:
    • 500 gallons = 500 gal x 8.3 lbs/gal x 2.2 kg/lb = 9,130 kg
    • say, 20 feet high = 6 meters
    • Pumped hydro typically has a round-trip efficiency of 70%.


    Potential Energy equals mass x gravitational constant x height (PE = mgh).

    PE = 9,130 x 9.8 x 6 = 536,844 joules = 0.15 kWh x 70% = 0.105 kWh

    While this is not a ton of energy, water towers used for multiple reasons can be interesting. The idea here is to de-couple the use of our reserviors. Right now, our reservoirs are deployed based on a variety of reasons - energy demand, water demand, river flows, etc. These are not time coincident. By having water towers downstream of reservoirs, it may be possible to de-couple two of those uses. I had hears there is a paper on something like this somewhere. I will see if I can dig it up.

  23. #998
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    On the beach somewhere
    Posts
    634
    Quote Originally Posted by Supermoon View Post
    I don't know enough about this stuff, but I was wondering if you could build a potential energy system to store power in your home. Get like 500 gallons of water, or a bunch of lead, or something, hook it up to a motor and when you have extra power, crank it up off the ground. When you need power, let the weight down and spin some sort of generator. In theory, if things got bad, you could hand crank the weight up and have more power for your house. Hell if you used water, you could drink it in a pinch, too.

    i have no idea how high/how much weight you'd need to make this practical.
    I firmly believe that mechanical storage is part of the solution. Examples include: pumped hydroelectric (your idea,) compressed air energy storage, flywheels, and ideas like - cranes lifting up heavy objects, then letting them down. The benefit versus chemical battery storage is longer life, more cycles in lifetime, and - as a result - better "energy stored over energy invested." See chart from this study

    Note the massive size of lowagriz's example. You need a lot of water and a good height difference.

    Let's explore your example. This is basic kinematics:
    • 500 gallons = 500 gal x 8.3 lbs/gal x 2.2 kg/lb = 9,130 kg
    • say, 20 feet high = 6 meters
    • Pumped hydro typically has a round-trip efficiency of 70%.


    Potential Energy equals mass x gravitational constant x height (PE = mgh).

    PE = 9,130 x 9.8 x 6 = 536,844 joules = 0.15 kWh x 70% = 0.105 kWh per cycle

    While this is not a ton of energy, water towers used for multiple reasons can be interesting. The idea here is to de-couple the use of our reserviors. Right now, our reservoirs are deployed based on a variety of reasons - energy demand, water demand, river flows, etc. These are not time coincident. By having water towers downstream of reservoirs, it may be possible to de-couple two of those uses. I had hears there is a paper on something like this somewhere. I will see if I can dig it up.

  24. #999
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    10,785
    Quote Originally Posted by Percy Rideout View Post
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	EhClvGZXkAI8Puz.jpg 
Views:	52 
Size:	141.2 KB 
ID:	427890

    Waste our time, stray from the topic at hand, and provide an ill informed opinion. Congratulations on the ignorance trifecta!
    OK playing the typical lame meme games when you don't have substance? OK

    Name:  f09523be-c8c7-47b6-87a6-e29a9edf3179_text.gif
Views: 370
Size:  680.3 KB


    You're the idiot who brought up GAWD.. And I've pegged you perfectly..
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  25. #1000
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Paradise
    Posts
    4,542
    Quote Originally Posted by SumJongGuy View Post
    And I've pegged you perfectly..
    That's what she said.
    dirtbag, not a dentist

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •