Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: So.. what moron said...


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: So.. what moron said... Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: So.. what moron said... - 4/4/2016 5:02:20 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline 		Excellent article out today: http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/03/31/twilight-of-the-climate-change-movement/

It points out that the AGW crew are engaging in revising their claims downward, to claim they were right all along, when in fact it is the skeptics that were right.

Some examples:

The IPCC walked back its earlier claims that humans were responsible for global warming; the latest claim says "it is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperatures..."

The original IPCC paper called a catastrophic environmental disaster 3 - 3.5 degree C rise.
The current IPCC position calls for catastrophic environmental disaster at 1.5 degree C rise.

IPCC AR4 said the best estimate of ECS at 3.00 degrees C.
The current methodology doesn't express a best estimate ECS at all.

Early IPCC predictions were that we would exceed the maximum temperatures of the holocene maximum 5000 years ago, and the medieval warming period. Neither prediction has come true.

The worst case prediction for ocean level rise was 3.7 meters in the first IPCC report.
1.2 meters in the second report.
.8 meters in the third report
.6 meters in the fourth report.

Confidence has decreased as well from near certainty to medium confidence. There is now a 66% probably of sea levels rising .45 - .82 meters in a high carbon emissions scenario by the year 2100.

66% chance sea levels rising half a meter in 90 years. Or to put it another way - there's a 66% chance the oceans will rise .002 inches a year. Does that sound like an emergency?

The first IPCC reports predicted increased storm activity, increased diseases. Both dropped out of the last ones. Because disease correlates with poverty (energy induced...) way more than it does global warming.

Etc. Etc.



(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 301
RE: So.. what moron said... - 4/4/2016 5:27:56 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Yup, but we knew it was non-binding going in, in fact when it was talked about many years ago.

the rest is not proof of any fact that would say it is not happening, it is only proof that the models and the understanding need work. It isn't Einsteinian yet.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 302
RE: So.. what moron said... - 4/5/2016 1:21:51 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

the rest is not proof of any fact that would say it is not happening, it is only proof that the models and the understanding need work. It isn't Einsteinian yet.


Which is exactly what I"ve been saying for to you for over a thousand posts.
If the IPCC - the very organization bruiting climate change has walked back half of the forcing, half of the estimated temperature increase, 75% of the sea level rise, one then is forced to say:

a). Their original reports were significantly wrong.
b). The science they proposed was significantly wrong. Actual warming vs their modelled warming is between 20 and 35% of predicted values.

In actuality, as I've said before - what the actual science establishes is:

a). Co2 concentrations lag temperatures. Ie, increasing temperature causes the oceans to release co2. The contributions from a 1 degree rise in ocean temperatures is more than 10 fold what man made emissions are.

b). The IPCC AR4 data paper says that CO2 greenhouse contributions are logarthmic. According to their own data, a doubling of the Co2 concentration would increase temperatures by approximately .3 degrees. Yet this is not what they've been bruiting to the world.

c). Nasa said, considering the cooling effect of CO2 in the outer atmosphere, the net effect of increased CO2 emissions is not known.

d). The degree to which their data does not fit the observed temperature profiles suggest that other causalities should be considered. AKA - the weakening of the solar magnetic field associated with the maunder minimum allowing more gamma rays to strike the earth causing aerosol formation and hence cloud formation.

Etc.

Finally. What the last ipcc report did which didn't get a lot of notice - when it said that CO2 may be responsible for half the global warming - it just admitted the sensitivity of climate to CO2 is HALF what they said in earlier reports.

What this means is that the maxiumum upside on the temperature, as well as the rate of change - is less than what they predicted earlier. In other words - it probably isn't an emergency.

< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 4/5/2016 1:24:25 AM >

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 303
RE: So.. what moron said... - 4/5/2016 1:41:26 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline 		Another interesting article: This one detailing how california, model for the epa Clean power plan, imports 35% of its power from other states.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2016/04/03/californias-growing-imported-electricity-problem/#a2a90d7e96bb

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 304
RE: So.. what moron said... - 4/5/2016 2:11:37 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Another interesting article: This one detailing how california, model for the epa Clean power plan, imports 35% of its power from other states.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2016/04/03/californias-growing-imported-electricity-problem/#a2a90d7e96bb



From your site.

And as seen with the 2015 drought, where low water levels had hydro dams producing 80% less power than normal, future generation and imports of hydropower will be restricted by climate change worsening drought.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 305
RE: So.. what moron said... - 4/5/2016 4:57:21 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:


What this means is that the maxiumum upside on the temperature, as well as the rate of change - is less than what they predicted earlier. In other words - it probably isn't an emergency.


It isnt a matter of other words. If a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight it concentrates his mind wonderfully. I wonder how much less so if he has a month, or six months?

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 306
RE: So.. what moron said... - 4/5/2016 2:19:05 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Another interesting article: This one detailing how california, model for the epa Clean power plan, imports 35% of its power from other states.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2016/04/03/californias-growing-imported-electricity-problem/#a2a90d7e96bb



From your site.

And as seen with the 2015 drought, where low water levels had hydro dams producing 80% less power than normal, future generation and imports of hydropower will be restricted by climate change worsening drought.


You say that as if its a great aha. I have never once said climate doesn't change thosmpon. It has been for 4 billion years.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 307
RE: So.. what moron said... - 4/5/2016 2:21:32 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline 		Pretty solid engineering here, which combines the best of some of the environmentalists desires with features the rest of us can support.
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/5/11347962/net-power

If this proves out - its fossil fuels with zero emissions, and higher efficiencies than ACCT plants (best technology). Pretty cool.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 308
RE: So.. what moron said... - 4/5/2016 2:43:39 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

You say that as if its a great aha. I have never once said climate doesn't change thosmpon. It has been for 4 billion years.

Roflmfao... nor have you said it was a sigificant factor that needs any consideration...

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 309
RE: So.. what moron said... - 4/5/2016 2:45:23 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Pretty solid engineering here, which combines the best of some of the environmentalists desires with features the rest of us can support.
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/5/11347962/net-power

If this proves out - its fossil fuels with zero emissions, and higher efficiencies than ACCT plants (best technology). Pretty cool.

Fossil fuels cost money sunlight is free....roflmfao...

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 310
RE: So.. what moron said... - 4/5/2016 2:52:24 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

You say that as if its a great aha. I have never once said climate doesn't change thosmpon. It has been for 4 billion years.

Roflmfao... nor have you said it was a sigificant factor that needs any consideration...



Nonsense.

The US reductions in CO2 emissions have occurred entirely because of reductions in emissions caused by replacing coal with natural gas. Something to the tune of 15% reduction - more than any other nation. A few percent caused by reduction of energy demand for a few years recently, but thats no longer the case. A few percent caused by greater powerplant efficiency. But generally speaking, almost entirely due to the switchover from coal to natgas.

But since this is a technology that allows much cleaner emissions, combined with costs that are competive with coal, I view this as a win/win. My personal view is that AGW will be limited to about .5 degrees. But in the unlikely event I'm wrong, natural gas is a zero pain alternative that helps the economy as well as cuts emissions.

I'm also in favor of nuclear power, although with the current cost structures, its not competitive with natural gas. Still, its a better alternative than most other proposals suggested, such as off shore wind farms.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 311
RE: So.. what moron said... - 4/5/2016 2:55:40 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Pretty solid engineering here, which combines the best of some of the environmentalists desires with features the rest of us can support.
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/5/11347962/net-power

If this proves out - its fossil fuels with zero emissions, and higher efficiencies than ACCT plants (best technology). Pretty cool.

Fossil fuels cost money sunlight is free....roflmfao...



Sunshine is free - converting solar power into reliable, steady state power is more expensive than fossil fuels. Six times more expensive, to be exact.

Showed you were wrong the last time you posted that. You're still wrong. Repeating yourself doesn't make you less wrong. Try defeating the argument instead of pounding the table.

Just for humor's sake - what do you think fossil fuels are except solar energy stored and conentrated into a form we can readily use? Capitalizing on fossil fuels means that we let mother nature convert the energy and then concentrate it for us....

< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 4/5/2016 2:56:34 PM >

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 312
RE: So.. what moron said... - 4/5/2016 3:44:03 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
ORIGINAL: thompsonx

Sunshine is free - converting solar power into reliable, steady state power is more expensive than fossil fuels. Six times more expensive, to be exact.

I have proved you wrong on this before.

Showed you were wrong the last time you posted that. You're still wrong. Repeating yourself doesn't make you less wrong. Try defeating the argument instead of pounding the table.

You seem to like pounding your head on the table.

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Whereas a Kwhr in the us costs $.12 And in florida $.07.


The sun shines for free. What part of that escapes you?
A hundred watt pannel cost me $85.
A hundred watt pannel will make 1 kw in 2 days if we figure the pannel get 5 hours a day of exposure. I live in the desert southwest with much more than 5 hours of insolation...
.12 cents into $85. equals 708 days.
Now unless the sun stops shining the rest of the electricity it produces is free.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

Just for humor's sake - what do you think fossil fuels are except solar energy stored and conentrated into a form we can readily use?

Opinions vary

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/on-energy/2011/09/14/abiotic-oil-a-theory-worth-exploring





(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 313
RE: So.. what moron said... - 4/5/2016 4:20:27 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Whereas a Kwhr in the us costs $.12 And in florida $.07.


The sun shines for free. What part of that escapes you?
A hundred watt pannel cost me $85.
A hundred watt pannel will make 1 kw in 2 days if we figure the pannel get 5 hours a day of exposure. I live in the desert southwest with much more than 5 hours of insolation...
.12 cents into $85. equals 708 days.
Now unless the sun stops shining the rest of the electricity it produces is free.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.


A. The cost you pay for a hundred watt panel does not reflect actual prices. It reflects prices after chinese dumping, american tax policy etc.
As I indicated before. Searching ebay, prices run $100 - 300 dollars.

B. Just as I indicated last time - cost does not include an inverter, batteries, or wiring.
C. Your cost doesn't include the cost to have a powerplant standing by to generate power for you - when its cloudy, or at night. Your cost doesn't include a portion of the transmission lines to your house, and the monitoriing.

D. Your costs don't depreciate your installation over its expected lifetime.

So all in all - your costs don't actually say anything about the comparison of solar costs vs coal powered costs. But here's a news flash. If solar power were cheaper - utilities wouldn't have to be forced to use it. They would be adopting it as fast as they could roll it out.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 314
RE: So.. what moron said... - 4/5/2016 4:46:34 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


ORIGINAL: thompsonx
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Whereas a Kwhr in the us costs $.12 And in florida $.07.


The sun shines for free. What part of that escapes you?
A hundred watt pannel cost me $85.
A hundred watt pannel will make 1 kw in 2 days if we figure the pannel get 5 hours a day of exposure. I live in the desert southwest with much more than 5 hours of insolation...
.12 cents into $85. equals 708 days.
Now unless the sun stops shining the rest of the electricity it produces is free.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

A. The cost you pay for a hundred watt panel does not reflect actual prices. It reflects prices after chinese dumping, american tax policy etc.

No dumbass it reflects what I paid.



As I indicated before. Searching ebay, prices run $100 - 300 dollars.

What ebay or bill smith charges is hardly relevant to me.
How many do you want at .85 cents a watt.
the sun continues to shine for free.

B. Just as I indicated last time - cost does not include an inverter, batteries, or wiring.

Ebay has inverters for a couple of hundred dollars. The cable run from the batteries to the inverter is about 2 feet. Using 00 welding cable at $2 a foot is less than $10. The cable run from the pannels to the batterise is #12 awg. A 50' roll is less than $25. the sun still shines for free.


C. Your cost doesn't include the cost to have a powerplant standing by to generate power for you - when its cloudy, or at night.

Jesus you are phoquing stupid.
You just said I had to pay for batteries. That is what stores electricity when it is dark dumbass.


Your cost doesn't include a portion of the transmission lines to your house, and the monitoriing.

Jesus you are phoquing stupid.
I have mentioned on more than one occassion that I live in a remote area and the nearest power line is more than 6 miles away.

D. Your costs don't depreciate your installation over its expected lifetime.


I have been using it for 30 years and it still works just fine.

So all in all - your costs don't actually say anything about the comparison of solar costs vs coal powered costs. But here's a news flash. If solar power were cheaper - utilities wouldn't have to be forced to use it. They would be adopting it as fast as they could roll it out.

Jesus you are phouing stupid. The utilities are a government monopoly and they do as they are told.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 315
RE: So.. what moron said... - 4/5/2016 9:59:04 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline 		Where you live, the utilities may be a government monopoly. Here, utilities are a monopoly established by state and/or local governments. But they are not a branch of government. They are regulated private industry.

Keeping up with that "never inulting somewhere first schtick, eh?"

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 316
RE: So.. what moron said... - 4/5/2016 10:08:12 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Where you live, the utilities may be a government monopoly.
Here, utilities are a monopoly established by state and/or local governments.
But they are not a branch of government. They are regulated private industry.

Do you even read the shit you post.
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.



(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 317
RE: So.. what moron said... - 4/5/2016 10:08:54 PM   
Dvr22999874


Posts: 2849
Joined: 9/11/2008
Status: offline 		Battery types are changing, in the sense of the materials used. They are more efficient at storage and the price of said batteries is falling all the time. We have 24 panels on our roof and intend to have a battery installed in a couple of years ( the Mitsubishi looks promising) and that should lower our costs to a very few dollars a quarter because YES the power suppliers insist that even though we don't USE the power, the lines are there and we have to pay for their upkeep. The government has agreed with this and passed it as law. The same with the water pipes and sewage, so it's really not worth going onto rainwater and septic tank. Our water bill is about $20 a quarter...............the bill for upkeep of the pipes etc and the fact that it is BEING supplied, is about another $180.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 318
RE: So.. what moron said... - 4/5/2016 10:18:12 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dvr22999874

Battery types are changing, in the sense of the materials used. They are more efficient at storage and the price of said batteries is falling all the time. We have 24 panels on our roof and intend to have a battery installed in a couple of years ( the Mitsubishi looks promising) and that should lower our costs to a very few dollars a quarter because YES the power suppliers insist that even though we don't USE the power, the lines are there and we have to pay for their upkeep. The government has agreed with this and passed it as law. The same with the water pipes and sewage, so it's really not worth going onto rainwater and septic tank. Our water bill is about $20 a quarter...............the bill for upkeep of the pipes etc and the fact that it is BEING supplied, is about another $180.


As well they should. In many places, the utility for transmitting power has been separated from the plants supplying power. IF you wish to have access to power at night, or in an emergency, you should be willing to pay your fair share of the infrastructure necessary to support you getting power.

Prior to the netmeetering charges, in places like california, hawaii, nevada, the cost of maintinging the trasmission lines was included in the power rate. When a solar customer stopped bying power, he passed his fair share of those overhead costs on to the people that were not using solar power.

As far as I know there is no obligation to hook up to the powergrid. So you always have the option of not paying those connection/maintenance fees.

(in reply to Dvr22999874)
Profile   Post #: 319
RE: So.. what moron said... - 4/5/2016 11:02:20 PM   
Dvr22999874


Posts: 2849
Joined: 9/11/2008
Status: offline 		And before we get into the 'Leftie/Rightie' feud......................the state government is Labour (Left) and the federal government is Liberal ( Right) and I couldn't give a fiddlers bitch for either of them. One tells lies and the other doesn't tell the truth and they are interchangeable...................pretty much like any other governments in the world I would guess.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 320
Page:   <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: So.. what moron said... Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.111