- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 8/23/15 at 12:57 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
How can you agree with a statement that makes no sense? One of those evil spirits must've knocked you on the the head one too many times.
Polluted water/water shortage is a much bigger, and fixable (in my opinion)issue than climate change.
Posted on 8/23/15 at 12:59 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
You're arguing about 3 separate points there and none of them are linked. Get your shite together.
I will agree that water purity and global warming/climate change are separate issues. However, I'll argue that water pollution and desalination are not as disconnect as you may think. I admit that I am no expert in this subject and you are more than likely smarter on the subject than I. I have spent several years in the Saudi Arabia/UAE region who utilize an advanced system to transform sea water into freshwater for a multitude of uses due to the lack of organic freshwater in the region. The expense of removing the salt (desalination) and purifying are very substantial. Limiting the number of pollutants in the water can decrease the cost of the purification system.
The reason I brought this up is we face severe water shortages that will become a major issue before we feel the full effect of climate change.
Posted on 8/23/15 at 1:04 pm to SpanishFortTiger
No US desal plant would be allowed to cut corners when it comes to ensuring the purity of the water. The process of eliminating potential pollutants would happen whether they've been detected in the source or not.
Posted on 8/23/15 at 1:06 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
No US desal plant would be allowed to cut corners when it comes to ensuring the purity of the water. The process of eliminating potential pollutants would happen whether they've been detected in the source or not.
Totally agree. The amount of times the water has to be purified does depend on the original condition of the water. The more treatment the water needs, the higher the cost for whichever entity is fronting the bill.
This post was edited on 8/23/15 at 1:07 pm
Posted on 8/23/15 at 1:08 pm to SpanishFortTiger
Right, so your original argument is invalid. What's next?
Posted on 8/23/15 at 1:16 pm to SpanishFortTiger
My company is in the investment property sector in parts of the Middle East, Europe and Africa. One of the most impressive things about the Burj Khalifa in Dubai is moisture accumulated (either from clouds at the top of the structure or rain fall) is funneled and captured in reservoir tanks beneath the building. Unrelated to the discussion of water purity and climate change but an incredible feat of engineering. These same principals are being explored by Kempinski and other firms across multiple projects on several continents. This type of technology and others such as solar panels are (at least for my company) being explored in the hopes our structures can be self-sufficient.
Posted on 8/23/15 at 1:18 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
Right, so your original argument is invalid. What's next?
I am unclear on our disconnect here. The main limit the United States is having in an attempt to catch up with countries who have mastered desalination is a lack of funding. Having water in the oceans that has a high number of pollutants increases the cost for a potential desalination/purification endeavor by the United States. Reduce the pollution in the water, reduce the cost of transforming salt water to freshwater.
This post was edited on 8/23/15 at 1:19 pm
Posted on 8/23/15 at 1:22 pm to SpanishFortTiger
The point is that, in the US, those processes will take place in the desal plant whether the pollutants are present or not. No heavy metals? Doesn't matter. The process will still include sending the stream through a precipitator.
Posted on 8/23/15 at 1:31 pm to upgrayedd
quote:
The point is that, in the US, those processes will take place in the desal plant whether the pollutants are present or not. No heavy metals? Doesn't matter. The process will still include sending the stream through a precipitator.
Fair enough, my fault for not realizing that point initially. I'm a bit out of a depth with this subject in regards to diesel plants. For other uses such as irrigation and human consumption, level of pollution does have a direct correlation to the cost of transforming the water.
Posted on 8/23/15 at 1:32 pm to biglego
quote:
Now we can pollute the air and not worry about it bc Calgary has snow.
Carbon Dioxide is not a "pollutant" - it is a trace gaseous molecule required for life to exist on this planet (at least life as we know it). A little too little CO2 would be a far bigger problem (meaning hundreds of millions or perhaps billions of people would die) - than a little too much CO2(which I'm not even conceding we're at yet, but maybe).
The reason why this specific gas was demonized for this very specific, unproven theory with poor models and extremely poor scientific rigor (and, to be fair, it has been politicized by everyone involved) is because it is a proxy for energy production. Since power is a relatively inelastic product with an expanding demand, government sees this as an untapped method for massive wealth redistribution on a global scale not yet seen in history.
Mankind is polluting the planet and causing damage in other ways. Heavy metals and overfishing are 2 far more dangerous issues that a few ppm of CO2, that may result in - at best - a few tenths centigrade over a few hundred years. A blip in the cosmic scale of things.
Posted on 8/23/15 at 1:36 pm to CoachChappy
quote:
Well it did until the temperature didn't continue to steadily rise, this the switch to the term climate change. Which means, we don't fully understand the changes in weather on our planet, but we can scare people into giving us money by saying that people are changing our climate.
This isn't true, in high school they taught us that global warming is caused by God changing the earthmostat
Posted on 8/23/15 at 1:38 pm to Ace Midnight
But it's the fossil fuel burning that contains the CO2. Maybe we should cut back on some of that
Posted on 8/23/15 at 1:39 pm to CoachChappy
quote:
Well it did until the temperature didn't continue to steadily rise, this the switch to the term climate change. Which means, we don't fully understand the changes in weather on our planet, but we can scare people into giving us money by saying that people are changing our climate.
It's better to remain quiet and be thought an idiot instead of typing this crap and removing all doubt.
Posted on 8/23/15 at 1:40 pm to el Gaucho
quote:
in high school they taught us that global warming is caused by God changing the earthmostat
In high school they taught us an ice age was coming.
Posted on 8/23/15 at 1:48 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
The reason why this specific gas was demonized for this very specific, unproven theory with poor models and extremely poor scientific rigor (and, to be fair, it has been politicized by everyone involved) is because it is a proxy for energy production. Since power is a relatively inelastic product with an expanding demand, government sees this as an untapped method for massive wealth redistribution on a global scale not yet seen in history.
This is an interesting point. It is amazing to see what the UAE has accomplished with the profits from the oil business. Would be interesting, and potentially frightening, to see what happens if a country other than the United States is able to create a cost effective alternative to conventional power. With where we stand in world wide rankings in education (specifically math and science) it would be a reasonable assumption we are not the front runners.
Posted on 8/23/15 at 1:54 pm to biglego
quote:
Maybe we should cut back on some of that
And replace it with what?
Posted on 8/23/15 at 1:55 pm to SpanishFortTiger
They know they'll be irrelevant in the next 100 years or so. They're trying to get theirs while they can.
Posted on 8/23/15 at 2:21 pm to beejon
are we supposed to be surprised it snowed in Canada? Calgary has snow reports in every month if you go back far enough.
Posted on 8/23/15 at 2:30 pm to beejon
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News