Picking up where the last page of this thread left off, with the Electric Viking and his report on the new EV drivetrain technology from Volkswagen...
"One of the biggest [EV] battery recycling plants in the US is up and running"
quote
Ascend Elements’ new recycling plant in Covington, Georgia is processing used lithium-ion batteries and manufacturing scrap into useful materials for the clean energy transition.
It's not the only battery recycling venture that's scaling up for the EV "revolution"
quote
Other emerging recycling startups are at it too. Redwood Materials, founded by Tesla co-founder JB Straubel, won a $2 billion conditional loan from the DOE for a Nevada plant to make new batteries from recycled materials. Canada-based Li-Cycle received a $375 million conditional DOE loan for its own facility to process lithium carbonate from a network of recycling plants. Canary Media recently profiled Cirba Solutions’ efforts to expand a battery-recycling plant in Ohio.
All of these facilities tie into the Biden administration’s goal to make the U.S. more capable of supplying itself with the batteries that will be pivotal to electrifying transportation and decarbonizing the grid.
Immerse yourself in the white noise of net zero carbonality with this brief report from Canary Media.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-16-2023).]
I owe you a debt of gratitude rinseberg. Thank you for the never ending opportunities to ridicule the stupidity of GloBull Warming.
I also owe you an apology. I am sorry I destroyed your hopes of being the Salesman Of The Year for GloBull Warming. My guilt is soothed by the fact that you will get a trophy anyway.
Will I get a participation trophy along with my "winner" trophy ?
Do you know why you are not even in the running for being the Salesman Of The Year for GloBull Warming ? Glaringly obvious is the fact that you can not, or will not, answer questions about GloBull Warming which exposes the stupidity of it. All you do is plagiarize the opinions of others which you think will make you look right. Never a thought of your own other than you are ate up with delusion. You need to stop listening to the voices in your head.
Now, to your last reply. Sad, sad, sad, .
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Redwood Materials, founded by Tesla co-founder JB Straubel, won a $2 billion conditional loan from the DOE for a Nevada plant to make new batteries from recycled materials. Canada-based Li-Cycle received a $375 million conditional DOE loan for its own facility to process lithium carbonate from a network of recycling plants.
What is that supposed to do for us ? Impress us ? Can you not even follow money. Who is the DOE and who do they work for ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: If you assign the number "1" to carbon dioxide for its greenhouse effect, on the basis of a single molecule, methane is a "25", which means that a single methane molecule has 25 times more "greenhouse" than a single carbon dioxide molecule. The reason that carbon dioxide is so important, compared to these other greenhouse gases, is its abundance in the atmosphere; its persistence in the atmosphere; and the fact that humans cause many times more carbon dioxide emissions, on a per molecule basis, than any of the other greenhouse gases that enter the atmosphere from human activities and processes.
BullZhit.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: "This graphic explains why 2 degrees of global warming will be way worse than 1.5" David Roberts for Vox; October 7, 2018. https://www.vox.com/energy-...grees-climate-change
There are lies, damn lies, statistics, and graphs.
quote
Originally posted by Patrick: I honestly don't know why rinselberg wastes his time trying to educate some of you guys.
It is a mystery to us too. I can't believe he hasn't figured out we don't give a damn damn about the claim of the Gawds that the Earth is doomed if the temperature of the atmosphere goes up two degrees 100 years from now. If it even happens. Not one of the \Greenies predictions have come true. Not one. I can't believe he hasn't figured out we don't live in mortal fear as he does. Perhaps he hasn't figured out we can see through the BullZhit and see the scam.
Does he really think we can be assimilated by the Gawds through his preaching ? When he won't even answer many question and has no counter to logic presented to him ?
rinselberg, did you know China is adding two new coal plants every week ? You never responded to my question asking if you knew all the cars in the world, combined, only account for 15% of CO2 emissions.
Do you remember Prohibition ? Did you know one can distill their own gas, just like alcohol was distilled during Prohibition ?
The EPA today is to answer Congressional questions. Expected are a barrage of questions about the legality of forcing Americans to buy something they don't want.
A few days ago I posted report(s) about how rapidly sea level has been rising in recent years along the Gulf Coast.
The "cliffw" expressed skepticism about the idea that sea levels in the Gulf of Mexico could be rising more rapidly than in the other oceans around the world, and (reading into his comments) that sea levels in some areas around the world could be higher than what other coastlines in different parts of the world are seeing.
It's because the water in the world's oceans is never in equilibrium as you move from one ocean to another, or from one area within an ocean to another area of that ocean.
There are differences in the climate zone determined by latitude (tropical, temperate or polar), wind patterns, coastal geography, the geography of the seafloor, and the geography and characteristics of the rivers that are feeding into the ocean as you move from ocean to ocean, or from one part of an ocean to another.
These differences drive the differences in ocean currents, and the differences in the salinity and the heat content of seawater (as registered by temperature readings) from one ocean to another, and from one part of an ocean to another.
According to these reports that I posted, the waters in the Gulf of Mexico have been warming all the way from the seabed up to the surface, and that contributes to sea level rise in the Gulf of Mexico because of the thermal expansion of seawater as it gets warmer. The warmer the seawater, the more volume it expands to, and that, along with the increasing mass of the water in the oceans (from melting glaciers and continental ice packs) contributes to sea level rise
So it is perfectly scientific that sea levels in the Gulf of Mexico are higher and are rising more rapidly, compared to other oceans around the world... the difference in sea levels, for example, between what is seen by Florida's Gulf Coast vs Florida's Atlantic Coast.
A few days ago I posted report(s) about how rapidly sea level has been rising in recent years along the Gulf Coast.
The "cliffw" expressed skepticism about the idea that sea levels in the Gulf of Mexico could be rising more rapidly than in the other oceans around the world, and (reading into his comments) that sea levels in some areas around the world could be higher than what other coastlines in different parts of the world are seeing.
It's because the water in the world's oceans is never in equilibrium as you move from one ocean to another, or from one area within an ocean to another area of that ocean.
There are differences in the climate zone determined by latitude (tropical, temperate or polar), wind patterns, coastal geography, the geography of the seafloor, and the geography and characteristics of the rivers that are feeding into the ocean as you move from ocean to ocean, or from one part of an ocean to another.
These differences drive the differences in ocean currents, and the differences in the salinity and the heat content of seawater (as registered by temperature readings) from one ocean to another, and from one part of an ocean to another.
According to these reports that I posted, the waters in the Gulf of Mexico have been warming all the way from the seabed up to the surface, and that contributes to sea level rise in the Gulf of Mexico because of the thermal expansion of seawater as it gets warmer. The warmer the seawater, the more volume it expands to, and that, along with the increasing mass of the water in the oceans (from melting glaciers and continental ice packs) contributes to sea level rise
So it is perfectly scientific that sea levels in the Gulf of Mexico are higher and are rising more rapidly, compared to other oceans around the world... the difference in sea levels, for example, between what is seen by Florida's Gulf Coast vs Florida's Atlantic Coast.
Do you really think that malarky can weasel you into being right ? Even if logic is laughing in your face ?
Are you a denier of the Law Of Physics ? Do you know why sea level is a world wide phenomenon ? Do you know what the specific gravity of sea water is ? You claim that temperatures expand water, which explains sea level rise. Are you also claiming sea water will not expand sideways ?
There is so much illogic in your post. I could go on but you will not address my thoughts or defend yours.
When you have no coherent thoughts to add to a discussion, just blurt out "Greta Thunberg". Because it's a mindless fixation with the social media crowd that you hang out with (too much) online.
From the same poorly informed social media crowd that was collectively deceived by this sneaky little "whopper" ...
"Nice..!"
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-20-2023).]
"The surface of the ocean is now so hot it's broken every record since satellite measurements began" Stephanie Pappas for LiveScience; April 14, 2023. https://www.livescience.com...e-temperature-record
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-20-2023).]
Rinse... this chart only goes to 1990, and even using 1970s through now statistics are silly. The earth is millions of years old (or older). 40 years isn't even a fart in the wind for the life of the planet.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Rinse... this chart only goes to 1990, and even using 1970s through now statistics are silly. The earth is millions of years old (or older). 40 years isn't even a fart in the wind for the life of the planet.
I disagree. When scientists compare the current climate and climate trends to previous periods in the earth's history, they are careful not to go back so far into the past that they would be "comparing apples to oranges". The general composition of the atmosphere, the outlines of the oceans and continents, the frequency and scale of volcanic eruptions... many relevant factors have changed (radically) or even recurred after radical departures during the roughly 4.5 billion years of the planet's history.
No one expects that the climate is going to stay closely as it has been since the end of the most recent glaciation (ice age) for tens of thousands more years, but what about the next 100 to 1000 years? A 1000 years is a significant fraction of the civilization that's already behind us in recorded history.
The question is what's happening now, and the evidence has identified the "leading suspect" as the human proliferation of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that has greatly expanded since the onset of the Industrial Age, roughly midway (by most reckoning) into the 1800s.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: ... this chart only goes to 1990, and even using 1970s through now statistics are silly. The earth is millions of years old (or older). 40 years isn't even a fart in the wind for the life of the planet.
...
quote
The question is what's happening now, and the evidence has identified the "leading suspect" as the human proliferation of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that has greatly expanded since the onset of the Industrial Age, roughly midway (by most reckoning) into the 1800s.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 04-20-2023).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: From the same poorly informed social media crowd that was deceived by this sneaky little "whopper" ...
Speak of fixation, .Perhaps I should introduce you to logic.
noun the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference.
a particular method of reasoning or argumentation:
the system or principles of reasoning applicable to any branch of knowledge or study.
reason or sound judgment,
convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness:
You should become well acquainted with logic. It will always help you out.
Are you trying to proclaim that meme is not true ? Do you know why that meme was introduced ?
Al Gore invented this grift. He invoked false feelings of sadness in us by proclaiming the ice bergs were going to melt, kill all the polar bears, and flood some islands completely, and change the coastlines all over the world.
They have scrubbed all mention of this on the idiot net but I heard it with my own ears. So many times, I couldn't forget. The his minions extrapolated it.
Originally posted by rinselberg: I disagree. When scientists compare the current climate and climate trends to previous periods in the earth's history, they are careful not to go back so far into the past that they would be "comparing apples to oranges".
Really, ? Who told you that ? Do they teach minion scientists which data to accept for an opinion which tows the official line ? Are these science minions the same one who predicted the coming ice age, back in the early eighties?
Forty years, ? And they proclaim predictions 100 years from now ? They were wrong, multiple times, 20 years into the GRIFT. In fact, not one prediction that the Climatolojesters have made came to be correct ! Not one !
Every time you post your religion I have always called in the veracity of the dribble of which you speak. Every time ! With logic.
I like you just fine rinselberg, but you can count on me countering your religion every single time you post your dribble. Reason being, we have allowed too many lies to become accepted as truth because no one took the time to call out the lie every time it was "claimed".
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 04-21-2023).]
Originally posted by Wichita: More good news, more land recovered, longer growing season. This is all good. A warming earth is better for humans.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: How much more warmer before "better for humans" turns into "worse for humans"..?
Even if the entire world went "Maximum Greta" overnight and (somehow) cut human greenhouse gas emissions to the bone starting tomorrow morning, the planet would keep getting warmer for many more years before the warming curve flattens and temperatures become level instead of rising. That's because of the greenhouse gases that are already in the atmosphere.
There's already more global warming that's "locked in", even in the most optimistic scenarios for curtailing greenhouse gas emissions.
Who are you ? The Guardian of the World ? Is there a reason why the Gawds won't allow you to be Guardian of the Universe ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: "More good news, more land recovered..." Land recovered? What's that about?
Think, think.
That is a graph. It can say what you believe it is. Could one say "more sea level recovered" ? Where does ice originate from ?
Tell us forum Climatolojesters expert. How many gallons do ice caps contain ? If they all melted, how many gallons will make it to the oceans ? How many more do icebergs contain ?
You don't know, ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: There really is a Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown,
I've been saying that an iceberg that melts, or polar sea ice that melts does not contribute to sea level rise. And in terms of a "first order" analysis, I am not wrong. It's all about Archimedes principle of buoyancy.
But there's a "second order" analysis, which takes into account that an iceberg or polar sea ice that melts becomes water that is fresher or less saline or "not as salty" as the seawater that it's in. There's also some temperature-related factors that come into play. But all of this is secondary. Numerically, in terms of sea level rise, it's very fractional. So it can (and should) be said that icebergs and polar sea ice that melts only contributes to sea level rise in a very small way, compared to the raising of sea levels that results from the melting of land ice (glaciers) and from the thermal expansion of sea water as oceans trend warmer as a direct consequence of the atmospheric greenhouse effect.
Here's the rule of thumb: Is the ice floating in or on seawater, which makes it "sea ice"—or is the ice on top of land? That's what determines whether it contributes to sea level rise as it melts. "It's the land ice, stupid." Of course, if there's an iceberg, it was calved from a glacier at a coastline. The iceberg is sea ice, but before it calved or went into the ocean, it was land ice. So the iceberg contributed to sea level rise on its Born On Date, when it calved and flowed from the land into the sea, and displaced an amount of seawater equivalent to its mass, which provides the buoyancy that causes the iceberg to float.
The famous Anheuser-Busch breweries went "all in" with the Born On Date concept, stamping the date on bottles and cans of Budweiser to assure customers of freshness. But the concept very logically applies to icebergs, as is manifest from the explanation of how icebergs are calved from glaciers.
To reprise, in a first order analysis, an iceberg that is melting away and becoming seawater is not contributing anything more to higher sea levels. It already did all of that on its Born On Date, when it went into the sea.
The second order effects that are identified in the articles that were posted by "cliffw" do not render this "Dumb-Net" meme any less dumb. In fact, they render it even dumber... although only to a second order or fractional extent. It becomes a small fraction dumber than it already was before, when the second order effects of melting icebergs and sea ice are accounted for.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-21-2023).]
"It's the land ice, stupid." Of course, if there's an iceberg, it was calved from a glacier at a coastline.
The iceberg is sea ice, but before it calved or went into the ocean, it was land ice. So the iceberg contributed to sea level rise on its Born On Day, when it calved and flowed from the land into the sea, and displaced the amount of seawater that is equivalent to its mass, which provides the buoyancy that causes the iceberg to float.
But to a first order analysis, the iceberg does not contribute anything more to sea level rise as it melts away and becomes seawater.
These second order effects do not render this "Dumb-Net" meme any less dumb. In fact, they render it even dumber... although only to a second order or fractional extent.
rinselberg, I don't know why you have the propensity to ridicule yourself for all the internet to see, in perpetuity.
I am not your "Barney the Dinosaur" nor your "Mister Roberts and His Neighborhood" to babysit you. Do you need the attention that bad ?
I will tell you what. Give me your address and I will Fed-X you a rock. When you convince that rock that Global Warming is real, come back and we will talk. That rock will not care that it will be existing in a warmer environment 100 years from now. That would be if it even gets warmer.
Do you know how to make ice ? Did those glaciers and icebergs grow from the land ?
"I don't like it that many scientists are talking about climate and the connection with human greenhouse gas emissions... even though I haven't the slightest idea of what many scientists are saying when they are talking about climate and the connection with human greenhouse gas emissions. That's why I posted this cartoon of some crazy 'leftist' who exists only in my imagination, and why, some months ago, I also posted this:
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-22-2023).]
An "extreme heat belt" reaching as far north as Chicago is taking shape, a corridor that cuts through the middle of the country and would affect more than 107 million people over the next 30 years, according to new data on the country's heat risks.
The report, released Monday [August 15, 2022] by the nonprofit research group First Street Foundation, found that within a column of America's heartland stretching from Texas and Louisiana north to the Great Lakes, residents could experience heat index temperatures above 125 degrees Fahrenheit by 2053—conditions that are more commonly found in California's Death Valley or in parts of the Middle East.
The projections are part of First Street Foundation's new, peer-reviewed extreme heat model, which shows that most of the country will have upticks in the number of days with heat index temperatures above 100 degrees over the next 30 years as a result of climate change.
The heat index represents what a temperature feels like to the human body when humidity and air temperature are combined. It is commonly referred to as the “feels like” temperature.
This NBC News report, which includes a video segment and two data visualizations, continues online.
"The U.S. could see a new 'extreme heat belt' by 2053"
quote
A new report uses 'hyperlocal data' and climate projections to show that cities as far north as Chicago could have many more days of extreme heat each year.
I haven't located the report that's being discussed, from the First Street Foundation. I may try again, later. I would like to scroll through it and get some idea of how it's based... what they are projecting in terms of greenhouse gas emissions along the timeline to year 2053, to arrive at these predictions.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-22-2023).]
Includes link to access full report "6th National Climate Risk Assessment: Hazardous Heat"
quote
This report highlights the impact of increasing temperatures at a property level, and how the frequency, duration, and intensity of extremely hot days will change over the next 30 years from a changing climate. It includes a high-level overview of the methodology behind the First Street Foundation Extreme Heat Model, a summary of heat risk across the nation, and a series of state pages which summarize and provide insight into new findings about extreme heat risk.
Enter the location of your home or other property and gaze into the First Street Foundation's climate projection "crystal ball". https://riskfactor.com/
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-22-2023).]
Originally posted by Wichita: Everyone owning a vehicle today will be driving an EV within 20-years guaranteed. 80% adoption within 10-years.
EVs are just far superior in every way. The automakers know this, that is why they are pot committed to going full EV production and completely phasing out ICE, and most manufacturers are going 100% EVs within 2-5 years, the rest will follow by 2030.
You can laugh or ***** all you want. But you asked people in 2000 that everyone would be online and have a cell phone, including grandma, they would think you were crazy. Well?
Same for EVs.
Are you a government Agent ? Did government force us at wallet point to buy a combustible fuel vehicle ?
Did government force us at wallet point to be online and force us, again at wallet point, to buy a cell phone ?
You say that automakers make EV's because they are superior ? Why are people not buying them ? Are auto manufacturers building EV's because Gooberment has their foot on the their necks ? Mandating all manufacturer's sales be 2/3 electric vehicles ?
Over the next 30 years, to 2053, the locality of Bandera, Texas is expected to reach double the number of days per year with daytime highs of at least 105 degrees, compared to where it is now.
Originally posted by rinselberg: An "extreme heat belt" reaching as far north as Chicago is taking shape, a corridor that cuts through the middle of the country and would affect more than 107 million people over the next 30 years, according to new data on the country's heat risks.
We should give a damn damn ? Why ? Who complained ? Just the Gawds ?
NBC News, ?
First Street Foundation ? Who the hell are they ? The First Street Foundation ? Surely they are an unbiased entity ? What ? They are not ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: The report, released Monday [August 15, 2022] by the nonprofit research group First Street Foundation ...
Non profit ? Where do they get the money for research ? Surely not from the Gawds. What ? That is where they get they money ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Over the next 30 years, to 2053, the locality of Bandera, Texas is expected to reach double the number of days per year with daytime highs of at least 105 degrees, compared to where it is now.
Where do I get this stuff?
I know exactly where you get it from !
105 degrees ? Great, a Cool Front. I worked drilling oil/gas wells in Laredo Texas,12 hours a day where, once, the GloBull temperature reached 114 degrees. Around that time, it was always close to 114 degrees. I survived.
I am sure the Gawds don't want you to know that.
I have to admit you are building quite the legacy. They might even tribute to you that all that think as you do, "as a rinselberger. rinselberging will define one that believes in lies, damn lies, statistics, and graphs.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 04-23-2023).]
Originally posted by cliffw: First Street Foundation? Who the hell are they? The First Street Foundation? Surely they are an unbiased entity? What? They are not?
They are biased towards the idea of preserving a weather-regulating climate for the 48 contiguous states of the United States that is compatible with human life for additional centuries and possibly some thousands of more years, until some factor(s) beyond human control evict homo sapiens in its entirety from all of its lodgings within the contiguous or continental United States.
(I'm setting Alaska aside, on terminological grounds. It's "continental" but it's not "contiguous"... except with Canada.)
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-23-2023).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: ... Texas is expected to reach double the number of days per year with daytime highs of at least 105 degrees, compared to where it is now.
Where exactly is it now ? Don't hold back. Go ahead. Show the ignorance of the Gawds.
Originally posted by [b][color=green]rinselberg:[color]
They are biased towards the idea of preserving a weather-regulating climate for the 48 contiguous states of the United States that is compatible with human life for additional centuries and possibly some thousands of more years, until some factor(s) beyond human control evict homo sapiens in its entirety from all of its lodgings within the contiguous or continental United States. (I'm setting Alaska aside, on terminological grounds. It's "continental" but it's not "contiguous"... except with Canada.)
quote
Originally posted by [b][color=green]rinselberg:[color] (I'm setting Alaska aside, on terminological grounds. It's "continental" but it's not "contiguous"... except with Canada.).
That is good news. Terminological grounds. It's "continental" but it's not "contiguous"... except with Canada.). China and India thank you.
You can not win when you are the wrong side of logic !
Originally posted by rinselberg: ... Texas is expected to reach double the number of days per year with daytime highs of at least 105 degrees, compared to where it is now.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: Where exactly is it now ? Don't hold back. Go ahead. Show the ignorance of the [b]Gawds.
if we rated enviro-efforts texas gets a single star as they are very BAD at it
green gawds like invisible ones do NOT exist never have or will and will not save your sorry butt
we lost winter here this year 2023 is hot and getting hotter the rump lovers can't fix it and refuse to help worse they try to stop anyone who dares try to fix it clearly showing their dark side plans and evil hopes
[This message has been edited by ray b (edited 04-23-2023).]
The First Street Foundation are biased towards the idea of preserving a weather-regulating climate for the 48 contiguous states of the United States that is compatible with human life for additional centuries and possibly some thousands of more years, until some factor(s) beyond human control evict homo sapiens in its entirety from all of its lodgings within the contiguous or continental United States.
if we rated enviro-efforts texas gets a single star as they are very BAD at it
green gawds like invisible ones do NOT exist never have or will and will not save your sorry butt
we lost winter here this year 2023 is hot and getting hotter the rump lovers can't fix it and refuse to help worse they try to stop anyone who dares try to fix it clearly showing their dark side plans and evil hopes
I understand. You live under a rock. Is it a climate rock ?
Genghis Khan and his empire cooled the earth. After killing 40 million people, vast areas of farmland were reclaimed by forests, removing 700 million tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
I understand. You live under a rock. Is it a climate rock ?
no I live under a tripled plywood screwed & glued and doubled steel roof that I added 1/2'' ss cable 27k working load to keep in place paid for because people like you have screwed up the weather beyond repair and we now have a good chance of a cat5 hurricane landfall here every summer and need a roof that will not blow away that costs about 25k a few years ago thanks to greed and inflation it would cost about 75 k today
insurance rates back my analyses of more storms with sky high rates one of many reasons I did the roof and skip 10k plus bills from the rising rates
Originally posted by ray b: ... I live under a tripled plywood screwed & glued and doubled steel roof that I added 1/2'' ss cable 27k working load to keep in place paid for because people like you have screwed up the weather beyond repair and we now have a good chance of a cat5 hurricane landfall here every summer and need a roof that will not blow away
My heart aches for you. So you do live under a climate rock.
Way before you were born, Florida always had a good chance of a Cat 5 hurricane coming ashore.
This viewgraph identifies hurricanes as a weather phenomenon that is being affected by climate change... not more frequent hurricanes, but in the changing climate brought on by global warming (brought on by human greenhouse gas emissions) these are not "your father's" hurricanes... these Climate Change Hurricanes pack more of a punch, bringing more rain and higher wind speeds, on average, than the hurricanes of Hurricane Seasons Past. "It was the best of storms, it was the worst of storms..."
"Global Change Seminar Summary: Interpreting the Latest IPCC Assessment Report for the U.S. Southeast" North Carolina State University, Southeast Climate Adaptation Science Center; November 8, 2021. https://secasc.ncsu.edu/202...r-the-u-s-southeast/
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-25-2023).]
April 21: Vice President Kamala Harris announced that the Department of Commerce has recommended a $562 million investment to fund almost 150 projects in 30 U.S. states and territories for coastal climate adaptation. The project awards will be administered by the NOAA’s Climate-Ready Coasts Initiative with funding from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act. The Vice President's itinerary included a visit to the University of Miami's Rosenstiel School of Marine, Atmospheric and Earth Science.
The NOAA’s Climate-Ready Coasts Initiative will build on the climate adaptation concepts developed by the Trump administration. In this well known photograph from September, 2019, President Trump used a sharpie to sharpen up the focus on a hurricane threat to Florida, which the President thought should be extended to parts of Georgia and Alabama, despite pushback from the National Weather Service over the predictions of meteorologists that Georgia and Alabama would not be impacted.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 04-26-2023).]
Originally posted by rinselberg: This viewgraph identifies hurricanes as a weather phenomenon that is being affected by climate change... not more frequent hurricanes, but in the changing climate brought on by global warming (brought on by human greenhouse gas emissions) these are not "your father's" hurricanes... these Climate Change Hurricanes pack more of a punch, bringing more rain and higher wind speeds, on average, than the hurricanes of Hurricane Seasons Past. "It was the best of storms, it was the worst of storms..."
Without any proof or even a theory as to why. Just a claim / prediction. Of which not one claim / prediction that they have ever made came true'
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: "Global Change Seminar Summary: Interpreting the Latest IPCC Assessment Report for the U.S. Southeast" North Carolina State University, Southeast Climate Adaptation Science Center; November 8, 2021. https://secasc.ncsu.edu/202...r-the-u-s-southeast/
Ah yes. Of course. The gloom and doom card, again.
Where did this information come from ? Of course. The United Nations IPCC super grifters.
You never did answer my question. Where does the United Nations IPCC super grifters get the money for their budget ?
I bet you are elated. Brandon put out an executive order mandating all the branches of his executive authority talk about Globull Warming like it is real. Brandon also created a new ABC Department. The Department of Environmental Justice.
BullZhit by any other name, still stinks. Fess up rinselberg ! What data did the United Nations IPCC super grifters use to compile their sixth acessment ? Don't read your link. It says nothing but circle jerk. Tell me I am wrong.
It was a cute touch to claim truth when ....
...your link is based on the assessment and synthesis of thousands of publications produced by hundreds of authors representing sixty-five countries. Can you name them, or are they anonymous, or even true.
Do you remember rinselberg ? 50 of our top intelligence representatives said Brandon's lap top sounds like Russian disinformation. Do we really have 50 dumbazzes running our intelligence departments ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: António Guterres, UN Secretary-General, described the report as a “code red for humanity,”
How many Gloom and Doom cards do you have up your sleeves ? Your scaring the zhit out of ray b. He recently spent 25 grand on a new roof which he thinks is CAT 5 Hurricane Proof.
.
.Perhaps I should introduce you to logic.
? Who told you that ? Do they teach minion scientists which data to accept for an opinion which tows the official line ? Are these science minions the same one who predicted the coming ice age, back in the early eighties? 
