• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  
Dog

Climate news

630 posts in this topic

2 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

Settled science, let's make a lot of laws.

Eugenics and forced sterilization is morally repugnant.   From a livestock selective breeding view, it is completely logical.   You don't keep low producing cows in the herd.   You don't keep flighty animals that cause human injury.   Are you saying mitigating global climate change is scientifically correct but morally repugnant?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Lark said:

In reverse order of your concerns.

Of course some conservatives are truly conservative in their environmental cause and affect approach.   The American Conservative party (R) gives the process a bad name by preventing even the navy from taking risk minimization actions that might affect national security, odd since they military is the only government agency left that the Republicans universally like.  (Even intelligence is on the questionable list, since they dared comment on Comrad Putin having his hooks in half of Trump's inner circle.)   So when Republicans try to prevent NASA and NOAA observations and order the military not to prepare for predictions, they taint the conservative brand name.   Just as some conservatives have been a great ally for prairie conservation (sustainable grazing and hunting), I would welcome American conservatives ceasing to be obstructionists and joining the world in protecting the world from climate change.

The Conservative reaction in the US is not the conservative reaction globally.   The US is promoting coal and eliminating black lung regulations.     We just reached 10% renewable energy, to the embarrassment of the Republican party.   Even more embarrassing, Texas makes a lot of it.   I admit curiosity on how high that can go while allowing for peak capacity during the dog days of summer (hot and windless).    But our policy "drill baby drill', 'dig baby dig' is not a straw man.  It is what the Republican party promotes.   Minimize conservation.  Review and water down CAFE standards.   Eliminate tax breaks for energy efficiency.   Don't tax carbon, subsidize it.   Can you give examples of Republican actions that are actually good for the planet?   Or actions where Conservatives thwart the Republican party to protect the planet?  Have Republicans considered how CAFE standards help protect the US automakers from badly polluting Chinese cars?   

The degree of preparedness has to be based on worst likely predictions, not best case scenarios.   I presume a conservative family man would protect his family with adequate insurance just in case he croaked, despite the expense.   I invest heavily in my health savings account even though I don't feel sick.    I'm buying a harnesses, because I don't trust my girlfriend not to panic if I fall overboard on Erie.   I could swim to shore eventually, but she may not fair as well.    Like a conservative sailor, I consider the involvement of any rescue service to be an extreme embarrassment due to my failure to plan and prevent adequately.  

I agree a thinking individual can come to a minority opinion on climate change.   Carless Dude is an extreme example, others have more polymodal view of the world.   I assume you would agree that Venus is an example of runaway global warming not explainable by proximity to the sun alone.   I would assume you accept that laboratory models and testing show a 'blanket' affect from CO2, CH4, O3, etc.   II assume you disagree with that Republican politician that blames body heat.   But we disagree on how much of an affect each has and which of the climate models are most accurate.   Would that be correct?

So if we agree so far, how much do we prepare for an uncertain future?   Dog argues that it makes no sense to do anything since nobody is doing enough.  (There is a big leak, so there is no reason to bail.   Just relax on the deck and hold your nose plan.)    Carless Dude says President Trump (R) is right, its all bogus.    What say you?   What would you do, knowing your children / grandchildren (if applicable) will depend on your getting it right?   Wouldn't the conservative approach be to take aggressive action to minimize the risk of changing their world further?   Germany proves sustainable energy production can be economical.   Several islands are doing fascinating things partially to avoid the costs of importing fossil fuels.   Foreign owned companies especially are doing quite well making and inventing renewable or energy efficient equipment,    Updating our aging infrastructure, decentralizing our power grid and simultaneously adding renewables is not only conservative engineering of the non BS tradition, but also provides jobs much less subject to automation and outsourcing then coal mines or pipelines to move Canadian oil to Gulf Coast supertankers.   Watering down every standard and regulation just because the Republicans can prevents long term planning and is actually bad for business.   I think we are missing a great opportunity because the Republican Party painted itself into a corner at the behest of its political donors.     

 

Long post!  I'll try and return the favor.

The 'conservative' umbrella contains many ridiculous people from true racists to homophobes to deniers in the bad meaning of that word.   Conservatives are forced to share the bus with them in the same way that liberals are forced to share the bus with lgbtqrstuvwxy-etc, no matter how weird it gets.  No, I'm not going to try and defend the undefensible.  It's foolish.

But I would make some points.  The idea that 'conservatives' don't believe in science is a popular trope but it's no more accurate than to say that liberals don't like science because they deny gender studies or genetics.  It's a broad over generalization that turns off the middle and makes them LESS interested in hearing an opposing point of view.  That's why I push back.  It's not true or helpful.

The global warming debate has been hijacked.  That's the simple truth.  What began as a 'save the future' movement became a redistribute wealth movement, then morphed into a "banana" movement - 'Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything" and finally has evolved into the shrine of the solar gods.  The environmental arguments have become reversed abortion arguments.  In the same way that there is NO liberal on earth that wants to kill babies, it's really easy to tar them with the 'right to life' arguments.  So the conservatives have taken the same approach as the liberals did on abortion - they argue a different point.  Namely, economic development.

The connection between CO2 and climate change isn't great.  Frankly CH4 and HFCs are dramatically better forcing gases and concern me more.  Yes, I'm familiar with Venus and Mars and Earth as templates and the problems with those observations as well.  If you dig into it, you'll find out that the variations in the predicted models for THOSE planets are comparable to the variations on THIS planet.  Yes, I'm aware of the physics.

Why are conservatives objecting to climate change?  Because that's not the fight that's actually going on.  It may be for you.  But it's not the larger argument.

For example, you mentioned CAFE laws.  If you follow that industry, you'll know that the reason the restrictions were lifted were because the car companies COULDN'T hit the targets!  Even with massive rebates, Americans aren't buying enough electric and high efficiency cars.  Starting next year, the auto industry would have to start paying fines because American consumers don't want those cars.  It's not that the cars don't exist -- Americans don't want to buy them. Sales of Teslas in Demark fell 80% YOY because the Danish government stopped subsidizing them.   Simple truth - if the CAFE laws weren't suspended, American workers would get fired.  So what do you do?  You can take the job hits or you can suspend the law and hope to do better later.  The high efficiency cars keep getting built and hope springs eternal that enough Americans will want to buy them.  Obama himself would have suspended the CAFE rules - he wasn't an idiot.

I mentioned my support for the Keystone Pipeline.  Why?  Because I'd much rather have American refineries that are built to handle shitty sulfur laden tar sands process the oil and treat the crap than build a terminal in western Canada and send it off to the Philippines or Thailand or Tibet where it would get processed and the crap dumped into the China sea.  I trust our regulated industry to do a better job than their non-regulated 40 year old cracking plants.  I believe its the best answer to a generally bad question.  Do you consider that answer to be fair or not fair?  Can I have a different view and not be evil?  I don't know.  I know I've thought about it, weighted the pros and cons, and have made an opinion.

Republicans that blame global warming on cow farts or body heat are simply idiots.  It's embarrassing that they would even say such a thing and they deserve scorn and ridicule.   Trump is an idiot.  I had hoped he would grow into the job.  I was completely wrong.  He's gotten worse.

We're releasing 429 quads of energy into the environment every year.  It is ridiculous and stupid to think that has no impact.  In the next 20 years, we will bring an additional 200 quads of energy online.  I would much rather that be done in a reasonable way and that we can focus on maybe trying to make it 150 quads instead.  I want the 3 billion people who don't have reliable energy and live in constant threat of disease and food deprivation to not have to be that way.  For that to occur, we MUST bring the 200 quads online which means we CANNOT meet the Paris accord limits.

I've read and linked to you the reports from the Fraunhofer institute.  Yes, I'm aware of what Germany has done and it's pretty amazing.  I'm also aware of how they've run into the storage problem, how they're focusing on trying to deal with it, and what the economic impact (good and bad) of their migration has been on their economy.  I'm familiar with the West Australia debacle. 

Here the Fraunhofer report again - they update it every 4-5 months.  It's a very cool read if you're a renewable energy enthusiast.

https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/publications/studies/recent-facts-about-photovoltaics-in-germany.pdf

I appreciate your perspective.  There are conservatives that are evil and stupid.  There are also conservatives that simply have a different point of view. If you want to convince them to YOUR point of view, you have to understand their perspective and show them where they can do better.

Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Lark said:

Eugenics and forced sterilization is morally repugnant.   From a livestock selective breeding view, it is completely logical.   You don't keep low producing cows in the herd.   You don't keep flighty animals that cause human injury.   Are you saying mitigating global climate change is scientifically correct but morally repugnant?   

No, that isn't what I said nor am I saying it  Note that I pointed it out as SETTLED SCIENCE.  Do you recognize those words?  Heard them lately?  Believe in them?  Wanna go for CONSENSUS?

I am pointing out that misrepresenting 'SCIENCE' and using it as an instrument of political power or social change is morally repugnant.

Selective breeding was known and practiced long before Darwin wrote and published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.   Your acceptance of it for livestock is just the first step to faith in eugenics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Saorsa said:

No, that isn't what I said nor am I saying it  Note that I pointed it out as SETTLED SCIENCE.  Do you recognize those words?  Heard them lately?  Believe in them?  Wanna go for CONSENSUS?

I am pointing out that misrepresenting 'SCIENCE' and using it as an instrument of political power or social change is morally repugnant.

Selective breeding was known and practiced long before Darwin wrote and published On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.   Your acceptance of it for livestock is just the first step to faith in eugenics.

I think your analogy was flawed but understand your point now.  Selective breeding or survival of the fittest are common sense cause and affect.  Darwin was willing to publicly state their similarities, despite the religious risk, and did a good job supporting his statement with detailed observations of the 'island effect'.   His "On the origin of the species" is worth reading.  As you stated, the phenomenon was understood long before Watson, Crick and Franklin took the first steps to explaining the mechanism.   Settled science, despite the creationist camp of the Republican party.   

Eugenics fails not on scientific grounds, but on moral grounds.   Many genetic diseases could be reduced or eliminated by selective breeding.   Many multi factorial diseases have a genetic component (as well as prenatal care, early childhood development, etc) and could be minimized.   Separating nature from nurture is of course not settled, partially because controlled experiments are unethical.    Racism (the determination that native groups, a subspecies in the language of a biologist, were inferior) was a flawed moral judgement.   They were different.   There are subtle genetic differences, generally advantageous in the environment of pre colonial Australia.  Addiction (alcoholism) also has a genetic component.     The problem (IMO) of eugenics was the forced sterilization, and the flawed moral judgement, including racism, that the group in power used to determine the fate of those without power.   The devaluing of life due to imperfection is a tricky slope indeed, especially if you trust me to determine what an imperfection is.   I accept the science of selective breeding without accepting the morality of eugenics.

The Education portion of your example was ironic, since Republican policy to determine school funding and quality by income of the parents (local property taxes, local control, poor parents kids' have shit educations) is one of my pet peeves, a huge waste of potential. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cmilliken said:

Long post!  I'll try and return the favor.

The 'conservative' umbrella contains many ridiculous people from true racists to homophobes to deniers in the bad meaning of that word.   Conservatives are forced to share the bus with them in the same way that liberals are forced to share the bus with lgbtqrstuvwxy-etc, no matter how weird it gets.  No, I'm not going to try and defend the undefensible.  It's foolish.

But I would make some points.  The idea that 'conservatives' don't believe in science is a popular trope but it's no more accurate than to say that liberals don't like science because they deny gender studies or genetics.  It's a broad over generalization that turns off the middle and makes them LESS interested in hearing an opposing point of view.  That's why I push back.  It's not true or helpful.

The global warming debate has been hijacked.  That's the simple truth.  What began as a 'save the future' movement became a redistribute wealth movement, then morphed into a "banana" movement - 'Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything" and finally has evolved into the shrine of the solar gods.  The environmental arguments have become reversed abortion arguments.  In the same way that there is NO liberal on earth that wants to kill babies, it's really easy to tar them with the 'right to life' arguments.  So the conservatives have taken the same approach as the liberals did on abortion - they argue a different point.  Namely, economic development.

The connection between CO2 and climate change isn't great.  Frankly CH4 and HFCs are dramatically better forcing gases and concern me more.  Yes, I'm familiar with Venus and Mars and Earth as templates and the problems with those observations as well.  If you dig into it, you'll find out that the variations in the predicted models for THOSE planets are comparable to the variations on THIS planet.  Yes, I'm aware of the physics.

Why are conservatives objecting to climate change?  Because that's not the fight that's actually going on.  It may be for you.  But it's not the larger argument.

For example, you mentioned CAFE laws.  If you follow that industry, you'll know that the reason the restrictions were lifted were because the car companies COULDN'T hit the targets!  Even with massive rebates, Americans aren't buying enough electric and high efficiency cars.  Starting next year, the auto industry would have to start paying fines because American consumers don't want those cars.  It's not that the cars don't exist -- Americans don't want to buy them. Sales of Teslas in Demark fell 80% YOY because the Danish government stopped subsidizing them.   Simple truth - if the CAFE laws weren't suspended, American workers would get fired.  So what do you do?  You can take the job hits or you can suspend the law and hope to do better later.  The high efficiency cars keep getting built and hope springs eternal that enough Americans will want to buy them.  Obama himself would have suspended the CAFE rules - he wasn't an idiot.

I mentioned my support for the Keystone Pipeline.  Why?  Because I'd much rather have American refineries that are built to handle shitty sulfur laden tar sands process the oil and treat the crap than build a terminal in western Canada and send it off to the Philippines or Thailand or Tibet where it would get processed and the crap dumped into the China sea.  I trust our regulated industry to do a better job than their non-regulated 40 year old cracking plants.  I believe its the best answer to a generally bad question.  Do you consider that answer to be fair or not fair?  Can I have a different view and not be evil?  I don't know.  I know I've thought about it, weighted the pros and cons, and have made an opinion.

Republicans that blame global warming on cow farts or body heat are simply idiots.  It's embarrassing that they would even say such a thing and they deserve scorn and ridicule.   Trump is an idiot.  I had hoped he would grow into the job.  I was completely wrong.  He's gotten worse.

We're releasing 429 quads of energy into the environment every year.  It is ridiculous and stupid to think that has no impact.  In the next 20 years, we will bring an additional 200 quads of energy online.  I would much rather that be done in a reasonable way and that we can focus on maybe trying to make it 150 quads instead.  I want the 3 billion people who don't have reliable energy and live in constant threat of disease and food deprivation to not have to be that way.  For that to occur, we MUST bring the 200 quads online which means we CANNOT meet the Paris accord limits.

I've read and linked to you the reports from the Fraunhofer institute.  Yes, I'm aware of what Germany has done and it's pretty amazing.  I'm also aware of how they've run into the storage problem, how they're focusing on trying to deal with it, and what the economic impact (good and bad) of their migration has been on their economy.  I'm familiar with the West Australia debacle. 

Here the Fraunhofer report again - they update it every 4-5 months.  It's a very cool read if you're a renewable energy enthusiast.

https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/publications/studies/recent-facts-about-photovoltaics-in-germany.pdf

I appreciate your perspective.  There are conservatives that are evil and stupid.  There are also conservatives that simply have a different point of view. If you want to convince them to YOUR point of view, you have to understand their perspective and show them where they can do better.

Good luck.

I'll read the Fraunhofer report this weekend.  Thanks.    As I noted, I'm curious how much wind is practical.    Conservation is still critical, if boring.   That's why I object to CAFE standards being watered down just because idiots feel the need to commute to work alone in their SUV, add mudders to their pickup to go to the grocery store, etc.    I objected to CAFE failing to create a separate (taxed) category for trucks and SUV, so people could work or haul boats.    I'd even let them create a (taxed) supercar category for rich idiots who want to drive slowly in bumper to bumper traffic.   I'd water down CAFE as part of a carbon tax, to allow individual choice.   I also support an increased gas tax.   

By the way, your logic in the Keystone Pipeline is convincing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lark said:

 

By the way, your logic in the Keystone Pipeline is convincing.

Then you should look into the problems of mining for batteries.

https://u.osu.edu/2367group3/environmental-concerns/effects-of-mining-lithium/

https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/01/19/tesla-motors-dirty-little-secret-is-a-major-proble.aspx

 

Are you certain of your solution?  TAANSTAAFL

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cmilliken said:

Long post!  I'll try and return the favor.

The 'conservative' umbrella contains many ridiculous people from true racists to homophobes to deniers in the bad meaning of that word.   Conservatives are forced to share the bus with them in the same way that liberals are forced to share the bus with lgbtqrstuvwxy-etc, no matter how weird it gets.  No, I'm not going to try and defend the undefensible.  It's foolish.

But I would make some points.  The idea that 'conservatives' don't believe in science is a popular trope but it's no more accurate than to say that liberals don't like science because they deny gender studies or genetics.  It's a broad over generalization that turns off the middle and makes them LESS interested in hearing an opposing point of view.  That's why I push back.  It's not true or helpful.

The global warming debate has been hijacked.  That's the simple truth.  What began as a 'save the future' movement became a redistribute wealth movement, then morphed into a "banana" movement - 'Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything" and finally has evolved into the shrine of the solar gods.  The environmental arguments have become reversed abortion arguments.  In the same way that there is NO liberal on earth that wants to kill babies, it's really easy to tar them with the 'right to life' arguments.  So the conservatives have taken the same approach as the liberals did on abortion - they argue a different point.  Namely, economic development.

The connection between CO2 and climate change isn't great.  Frankly CH4 and HFCs are dramatically better forcing gases and concern me more.  Yes, I'm familiar with Venus and Mars and Earth as templates and the problems with those observations as well.  If you dig into it, you'll find out that the variations in the predicted models for THOSE planets are comparable to the variations on THIS planet.  Yes, I'm aware of the physics.

Why are conservatives objecting to climate change?  Because that's not the fight that's actually going on.  It may be for you.  But it's not the larger argument.

For example, you mentioned CAFE laws.  If you follow that industry, you'll know that the reason the restrictions were lifted were because the car companies COULDN'T hit the targets!  Even with massive rebates, Americans aren't buying enough electric and high efficiency cars.  Starting next year, the auto industry would have to start paying fines because American consumers don't want those cars.  It's not that the cars don't exist -- Americans don't want to buy them. Sales of Teslas in Demark fell 80% YOY because the Danish government stopped subsidizing them.   Simple truth - if the CAFE laws weren't suspended, American workers would get fired.  So what do you do?  You can take the job hits or you can suspend the law and hope to do better later.  The high efficiency cars keep getting built and hope springs eternal that enough Americans will want to buy them.  Obama himself would have suspended the CAFE rules - he wasn't an idiot.

I mentioned my support for the Keystone Pipeline.  Why?  Because I'd much rather have American refineries that are built to handle shitty sulfur laden tar sands process the oil and treat the crap than build a terminal in western Canada and send it off to the Philippines or Thailand or Tibet where it would get processed and the crap dumped into the China sea.  I trust our regulated industry to do a better job than their non-regulated 40 year old cracking plants.  I believe its the best answer to a generally bad question.  Do you consider that answer to be fair or not fair?  Can I have a different view and not be evil?  I don't know.  I know I've thought about it, weighted the pros and cons, and have made an opinion.

Republicans that blame global warming on cow farts or body heat are simply idiots.  It's embarrassing that they would even say such a thing and they deserve scorn and ridicule.   Trump is an idiot.  I had hoped he would grow into the job.  I was completely wrong.  He's gotten worse.

We're releasing 429 quads of energy into the environment every year.  It is ridiculous and stupid to think that has no impact.  In the next 20 years, we will bring an additional 200 quads of energy online.  I would much rather that be done in a reasonable way and that we can focus on maybe trying to make it 150 quads instead.  I want the 3 billion people who don't have reliable energy and live in constant threat of disease and food deprivation to not have to be that way.  For that to occur, we MUST bring the 200 quads online which means we CANNOT meet the Paris accord limits.

I've read and linked to you the reports from the Fraunhofer institute.  Yes, I'm aware of what Germany has done and it's pretty amazing.  I'm also aware of how they've run into the storage problem, how they're focusing on trying to deal with it, and what the economic impact (good and bad) of their migration has been on their economy.  I'm familiar with the West Australia debacle. 

Here the Fraunhofer report again - they update it every 4-5 months.  It's a very cool read if you're a renewable energy enthusiast.

https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/publications/studies/recent-facts-about-photovoltaics-in-germany.pdf

I appreciate your perspective.  There are conservatives that are evil and stupid.  There are also conservatives that simply have a different point of view. If you want to convince them to YOUR point of view, you have to understand their perspective and show them where they can do better.

Good luck.

Well done.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Dog said:

Not to mention that burning fossil fuels produces toxic gasses, CO2 however is not one of them.  

I guess that depends if you like oceans...you know, since they comprise most of the planet...

hitimeseries.jpg?itok=8EMNsHwc

 

http://ocean.si.edu/ocean-acidification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, warbird said:

Amidst remodeling two houses, winding down at the Labs I retire from next week, working with builders on the downsized retirement home and racing my sailboat, your silly fuckin' request is low on the list. I pointed out that Australian websites  put forth here above did not list their sensor platforms.  That might suggest they rely on NOAA.  NOAA platforms lack any real accuracy.

Ah so the dog ate your homework?  Sad.  So you still got nothing better though have you?

You are disappointing, I thought you would have something other than words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Walking Dude said:

Pretty sure it means he has a life.

What's your excuse?

I am seriously disappointed that no posters here have data to prove that NASA and NOAA are lying, although they say they are.  So I have come to the conclusion that these people are sheeple really, greedy sheeple, who don't want anyone to upset their lives in anyway.  Fuck the planet, fuck every one else, it's about me and my superannuation stocks and shares.

So the division on this subject is based on those who care about others and those who care only about themselves.  Given that most of the old white guys on this forum will be 'cunt up' (as they say in Aus) in the next 20 years or so, they are willing to take their chances.  What greedy greedy greedy cunts.

But I digress, WarpedBird's got nothing.  Doggy's got nothing,  Walking Dud's got nothing,  Modrat's got nothing.  Sao's got nothing.  None of the deniers on this site have any evidence to back up what they are posting, none.  Sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Walking Dude said:

Austin you really don't understand.

Burning fossil fuels creates Carbon MONoxide. 

Try again. 

 

Are you saying that burning fossil fuels DOES NOT create CO2? Really????

CO2 is carbon DIoxide.

I don't think I need to try again.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Walking Dude said:

Austin you really don't understand.

Burning fossil fuels creates Carbon MONoxide. 

Try again. 

The end point of any fully oxidized hydrocarbon is CO2 + H2O.

CO is one of the molecules created during high temperature oxidation wherein the moles of O2 is less than the stoichiometric ratio of [C]+[2H2].  There's significant energy left in CO compared to CO2 so if your mixture and conditions are such that you're creating a lot of CO, then you're wasting a lot of energy so that's never done in practice.  You want to convert all the carbon over to CO2 for maximum efficiency.  However, there's always an equilibrium concentration of CO in any practical device so most engines will include some sort of post reaction cleanup to shift trace CO to CO2 for safety reasons - small home generators not withstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Walking Dude said:

Do you actually remember high school? There was this thing called chemistry. 

Yes. I took AP organic chemistry. You know, the side of chemistry that deals with carbon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lark said:

I'll read the Fraunhofer report this weekend.  Thanks.    As I noted, I'm curious how much wind is practical.    Conservation is still critical, if boring.   That's why I object to CAFE standards being watered down just because idiots feel the need to commute to work alone in their SUV, add mudders to their pickup to go to the grocery store, etc.    I objected to CAFE failing to create a separate (taxed) category for trucks and SUV, so people could work or haul boats.    I'd even let them create a (taxed) supercar category for rich idiots who want to drive slowly in bumper to bumper traffic.   I'd water down CAFE as part of a carbon tax, to allow individual choice.   I also support an increased gas tax.   

By the way, your logic in the Keystone Pipeline is convincing.

 

Wind is an interesting opportunity and problem.  One of the big advantages of wind is that it's offset seasonally from solar.  As the Germans discovered, the north sea generation tends to be highest in January while the solar was highest in July.  That's actually great news for being able to balance the grid.  Without some sort of counter generation, the seasonal energy production varies by about 700%.  That means in the winter you need 7x more solar panels than you need in the summer to create the same amount of energy.  That either leads to a massive oversupply and stranded capital in the summer or a dramatic undersupply and shortages in the winter.  Wind offsets that so the ratio is only like 4 to 1 which is much better.

So there is opportunity.  The problem with wind is that the power goes as the cube of the velocity.  In practice that means that relatively small fluctuation in wind speed create dramatic fluctuations in output power.  The Germans end up free-spinning their windmills due to wind velocity being too high as they do shutting them down because wind velocity is too low.  The best answer to that is taller (not necessarily bigger) windmills.  Modern construction cranes only go up to about 90 meters in practice.  Freaking high but not high enough to get into the more ideal constant wind conditions.  Also, because the weight of the turbines is at the top, higher turbines mean longer arms which means much larger towers at the base.  In practice, it's really hard to lift wind turbines up to where they'd be most useful without the tower costs and dynamics being unweildy.  That's why there's interest in alternate technologies like vertical turbines but those have stability issues too.

I'm OK with the turbines planned for Lake Erie.

The CAFE standards are nice because they're 'goals' that industry can try and achieve but they're also 'blunt' meaning you can get a lot of unintended consequences.

I'm an all of the above person.  Put wind in where it makes sense.  Put solar in where it makes sense.  Keep working diligently on alternative energy.  Let oil and gas bear the true costs of extraction.  Those are not new industries and they don't need help.  The biggest impediment to innovation is cheep energy.

I'm actually OK with a carbon tax but that's for another thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wind out here makes a ton of power if they're put in the right place.

I'm kinda in a weird location as far as counties coming together with me sorta at the epicenter but here are the wind farms near me.

Company/MW/County

Top Crop 300 LaSalle
Grand Ridge 210 LaSalle
Shady Oaks[14] 109.5 Lee
Mendota Hills 51.66 Lee
Lee-DeKalb 217.5 Lee/DeKalb
GSG 80 Lee/LaSalle
Cayuga Ridge 300 Livingston

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, austin1972 said:

Wind out here makes a ton of power if they're put in the right place.

 

Wind is bit like real estate - location, location, location!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

filing-nails-at-work-300x250.jpg

I am seriously disappointed that no posters here have data to prove that NASA and NOAA are lying, although they say they are.  So I have come to the conclusion that these people are sheeple really, greedy sheeple, who don't want anyone to upset their lives in anyway.  Fuck the planet, fuck every one else, it's about me and my superannuation stocks and shares.

So the division on this subject is based on those who care about others and those who care only about themselves.  Given that most of the old white guys on this forum will be 'cunt up' (as they say in Aus) in the next 20 years or so, they are willing to take their chances.  What greedy greedy greedy cunts.

But I digress, WarpedBird's got nothing.  Doggy's got nothing,  Walking Dud's got nothing,  Modrat's got nothing.  Sao's got nothing.  None of the deniers on this site have any evidence to back up what they are posting, none.  Sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

imiq1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Lark said:

I think your analogy was flawed but understand your point now.  Selective breeding or survival of the fittest are common sense cause and affect.  Darwin was willing to publicly state their similarities, despite the religious risk, and did a good job supporting his statement with detailed observations of the 'island effect'.   His "On the origin of the species" is worth reading.  As you stated, the phenomenon was understood long before Watson, Crick and Franklin took the first steps to explaining the mechanism.   Settled science, despite the creationist camp of the Republican party.   

Eugenics fails not on scientific grounds, but on moral grounds.   Many genetic diseases could be reduced or eliminated by selective breeding.   Many multi factorial diseases have a genetic component (as well as prenatal care, early childhood development, etc) and could be minimized.   Separating nature from nurture is of course not settled, partially because controlled experiments are unethical.    Racism (the determination that native groups, a subspecies in the language of a biologist, were inferior) was a flawed moral judgement.   They were different.   There are subtle genetic differences, generally advantageous in the environment of pre colonial Australia.  Addiction (alcoholism) also has a genetic component.     The problem (IMO) of eugenics was the forced sterilization, and the flawed moral judgement, including racism, that the group in power used to determine the fate of those without power.   The devaluing of life due to imperfection is a tricky slope indeed, especially if you trust me to determine what an imperfection is.   I accept the science of selective breeding without accepting the morality of eugenics.

The Education portion of your example was ironic, since Republican policy to determine school funding and quality by income of the parents (local property taxes, local control, poor parents kids' have shit educations) is one of my pet peeves, a huge waste of potential. 

Actually Eugenics failed on both moral and scientific grounds.  There was no basis for it as a science until the actual mechanisms were identified (Crick and Watson, Et Al).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, cmilliken said:

The end point of any fully oxidized hydrocarbon is CO2 + H2O.

CO is one of the molecules created during high temperature oxidation wherein the moles of O2 is less than the stoichiometric ratio of [C]+[2H2].  There's significant energy left in CO compared to CO2 so if your mixture and conditions are such that you're creating a lot of CO, then you're wasting a lot of energy so that's never done in practice.  You want to convert all the carbon over to CO2 for maximum efficiency.  However, there's always an equilibrium concentration of CO in any practical device so most engines will include some sort of post reaction cleanup to shift trace CO to CO2 for safety reasons - small home generators not withstanding.

Zackly. CO is the product of inefficient combustion. If your prime mover is producing a lot of CO (I've found ~ 4% to be a good practical threshold) then your calibration tech needs to get to work (assuming he knows anything about combustion controls... part of the job description IMHO but then I was trained in a less kind & gentle era).

I was hoping we could talk about pre-Copernican and Aristotlean science more. Bit of thread drift though

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Zackly. CO is the product of inefficient combustion. If your prime mover is producing a lot of CO (I've found ~ 4% to be a good practical threshold) then your calibration tech needs to get to work (assuming he knows anything about combustion controls... part of the job description IMHO but then I was trained in a less kind & gentle era).

I was hoping we could talk about pre-Copernican and Aristotlean science more. Bit of thread drift though

-DSK

 

Sometime we can get into it if you want! :)  

Actually, one of the more interesting topics I've been reading about lately is the implication of 'negative' numbers.  In essence, the entire collection of imaginary numbers only exists because we decided to include negatives (which was resisted for centuries) in our basic number line.  That has good and bad implications, but one of the foremost was to create a periodicity - a time like effect - in an otherwise non repeating scheme.

The first time I ran into that kind of problem was in crystallography.  In that field, there's a collection of 'forbidden' reflections - in essence, signals that should exist but don't in practice.  As a student or engineer, you're just remember which ones are forbidden for which crystal structures.  A few years later, in solid state physics, I learned the truth - the crystals that we describe include extra information that is redundant.   The forbidden reflections are an artifact of that assumptions - if you use the minimum information necessary just based on energy and repeating structures instead, then there are no forbidden reflections.

So why did early scientist include information that was redundant?  Because humans like symmetry and like common shapes - squares, circles, triangles.  Nature cares about energy.  We can fit a parallelepiped into a square box and do so because we like squares.  But that means you include extra information - namely, the information of what 'else' has to be included to make the parallelepiped fit the imposed geometry.  That creates echos that show up throughout later calculations.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, cmilliken said:

Wind is bit like real estate - location, location, location!

 

True in racing, true in the energy bidness... hey wait! Maybe I can get a job teaching these wind-power types how to tack on headers!

-DSK

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

True in racing, true in the energy bidness... hey wait! Maybe I can get a job teaching these wind-power types how to tack on headers!

-DSK

 

 

Truth!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Saorsa said:

Actually Eugenics failed on both moral and scientific grounds.  There was no basis for it as a science until the actual mechanisms were identified (Crick and Watson, Et Al).

 

Selective breeding was both experiment and process.    Mendel produced the math of simple genetic traits, complete dominance on one allele, way back.    The gentlemen farmers of Jefferson's day were testing for the heritability of many traits long before somebody could guess what was happening inside one of Leeuwenhoek's cells.   Granted many false assumptions were made on heritability, nobody dreamed of multifactorial incomplete dominance, let alone the intricate control mechanisms recently elucidated in the nonsense regions.  But they knew redheads were hereditary.   Unintended baggage confounded the selective breeding process, increased milk production in Holstein cattle linked to twinning, and as a result, medical problems after calving,    Gene maps have helped keep us humble.  To say there was no scientific basis would be to ignore a lot of observational science and early predictive genetics.   Cause and affect can be carefully examined without mechanism. Much of the mechanism I memorized in undergrad is incomplete, some was wrong.   Yet they still did science back in the 1980's and early 1990's.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still waiting for the usual crowd to provide something to support their greed arguments.

Nothing, absolutely nothing.  Sad.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/24/2017 at 5:08 AM, random said:

filing-nails-at-work-300x250.jpg

I am seriously disappointed that no posters here have data to prove that NASA and NOAA are lying, although they say they are.  So I have come to the conclusion that these people are sheeple really, greedy sheeple, who don't want anyone to upset their lives in anyway.  Fuck the planet, fuck every one else, it's about me and my superannuation stocks and shares.

So the division on this subject is based on those who care about others and those who care only about themselves.  Given that most of the old white guys on this forum will be 'cunt up' (as they say in Aus) in the next 20 years or so, they are willing to take their chances.  What greedy greedy greedy cunts.

But I digress, WarpedBird's got nothing.  Doggy's got nothing,  Walking Dud's got nothing,  Modrat's got nothing.  Sao's got nothing.  None of the deniers on this site have any evidence to back up what they are posting, none.  Sad.

http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/rsa.shtml

 

I did not claim NOAA was lying. See the Data above. NOAA relies on inaccurate sensors. Some suggest that they can get a statistcal answer. I suggest they cannot get a statistical answer to the 1/100th of a degree C for global warming the CGW crowd claim.

A professor of statistics is driving past the cattle yards. 100 pens in a row. Each pen contains 47 spotted cows and 53 black cows. The proffessor glances at each as he is driving by. His best causual sampling suggest that 1/2 the cows are black and 1/2 the cows are spotted. When asked, the best he could do is say I think 1/2 the cows are black. He is off by 300 cows.  A NOAA sensor that is accurate to +/- 1 degree C has a window of 2 degrees. The average sea temp is ~20c. Think about it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep nothing to see here!

2016-12_p14.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, random said:

Yep nothing to see here!

2016-12_p14.png

Where did the data for your graph come from? What is the 5% and 95% certainty? Yup, nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, warbird said:
9 minutes ago, random said:

 

Where did the data for your graph come from? What is the 5% and 95% certainty? Yup, nothing.

Came from State of the Climate 2016

BOM/CSIRO are scientific organisations, one of them invented WiFi that you are probably using right now.  But it's the 'science' part that you need to read up on, as it is clearly the part you do not understand.

But then for thinking people, there is a choice.  Some anonymous poster on the interweb, or BOM/CSIRO?

For people not capable of critical thinking, they believe the last junk email from an Exxon funded 'think tank'.  I guess that's you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, random said:

Came from State of the Climate 2016

BOM/CSIRO are scientific organisations, one of them invented WiFi that you are probably using right now.  But it's the 'science' part that you need to read up on, as it is clearly the part you do not understand.

But then for thinking people, there is a choice.  Some anonymous poster on the interweb, or BOM/CSIRO?

For people not capable of critical thinking, they believe the last junk email from an Exxon funded 'think tank'.  I guess that's you.

Except you have been posting that graph since'14.The article is an editorial, not a findings paper. Nice try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't have to try, and yet I fucking destroyed you.

Thanks for coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, random said:

Came from State of the Climate 2016

BOM/CSIRO are scientific organisations, one of them invented WiFi that you are probably using right now.  But it's the 'science' part that you need to read up on, as it is clearly the part you do not understand.

But then for thinking people, there is a choice.  Some anonymous poster on the interweb, or BOM/CSIRO?

For people not capable of critical thinking, they believe the last junk email from an Exxon funded 'think tank'.  I guess that's you.

CSIRO's predecessor was in charge Austrailia's Eugenics programs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, random said:

I didn't have to try, and yet I fucking destroyed you.

Thanks for coming.

You post an editorial/op ed  news,letter as scientific proof or source and you destroyed me??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a Scientific Report.  See there you go again, unable to tell the difference.  That ignorance is why you have sucked up those Exxon emails.

Sad.  But that's Trump voters for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Annihilator said:

DELINGPOLE: NOAA Scandal Gives Trump The Perfect Excuse To Drain The Climate Swamp

So NOAA deliberately fiddled the climate data to hide the “pause” in global warming in time for the UN’s COP21 Paris talks.

You post Brietbart links and expect people to even click in them?  Written and directed by the Trump advisor who is dismantling climate change mediation?

Got anything credible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Annihilator said:

Did you read? The op-ed is about a whistle-blower who left the agency with damning evidence of their deception. 

I post a scientific report, you post bullshit with no substance other then payment to Brietbart from the Oil lobby for producing it.  YCMTSU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Annihilator said:

Do you have any evidence of such collusion between Breitbart and the oil industry?  Or is this just another conspiracy theory? 

Have you actually thought about Brietbart's business model?  Do you think they post stuff like that for fun?

Anything in Brietbart is funded by someone, they would get more from the 'news' words than the ads.  All you have to do to work out who is to analyse who would benefit from the story.

But Trump voters cannot think critically, they just read it (some can't read, but that's ok cause Trump can't either) hear it, and believe it.  They think Brietbart is the bible, as you must to link to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, random said:

Have you actually thought about Brietbart's business model?  Do you think they post stuff like that for fun?

Anything in Brietbart is funded by someone, they would get more from the 'news' words than the ads.  All you have to do to work out who is to analyse who would benefit from the story.

But Trump voters cannot think critically, they just read it (some can't read, but that's ok cause Trump can't either) hear it, and believe it.  They think Brietbart is the bible, as you must to link to them.

You must have missed this, you got reading problems like Trump?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Annihilator said:

Looks like they are doing okay on their own, to me.

 

Screenshot_2017-06-26-20-17-32-1_zpscsbh

 

Ratings are always a good standard for quality.

 

RANK PROGRAM ORIG. RATING VIEWERS (000)
1 JUDGE JUDY (AT) CBS TV DISTRIBUTION 6.5 9,141
2 FAMILY FEUD (AT) 20TH TELEVISION 6.4 9,573
3 WHEEL OF FORTUNE CBS TV DISTRIBUTION 5.4 8,471
4 JEOPARDY (AT) CBS TV DISTRIBUTION 5.3 8,126
5 BIG BANG-SYN (AT) WARNER BROS. TV 4.7 7,266
6 LAW & ORDER:SVU-WKL (AT) NBC UNIVERSAL 4.1 5,625
7 FAMILY FEUD-WK (AT) 20TH TELEVISION 3.3 5,077
8 BIG BANG WKND (AT) WARNER BROS. TV 2.9 4,665
9 MODERN FAMILY-WK-SYN (AT) 20TH TELEVISION 2.9 4,363
10 ENTERTAINMENT TONIGHT CBS TV DISTRIBUTION 2.7 3,974

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I thought the TV shows were bad:

RANK SALES COUNT (DOLLARS) TITLE
1 444,594,071 Bud Light
2 195,289,839 Coors Light
3 161,451,337 Budweiser
4 160,537,169 Corona Extra
5 157,971,611 Miller Lite
6 125,734,593 Michelob Ultra Lgr
7 120,504,446 Modelo Especial
8 73,972,692 Natural Light
9 65,991,133 Heineken Lgr
10 65,971,206

Busch Light

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, random said:

It's a Scientific Report.  See there you go again, unable to tell the difference.  That ignorance is why you have sucked up those Exxon emails.

Sad.  But that's Trump voters for you.

http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/oceans-and-cryosphere.shtml

 

Huh???????

It is a summation with graphs and charts (your favorite). Do you really wonder why you are tagged "ranDUMBERthanshit???

Is Australia ruining the oceans?

 

x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you explain the Pleistocene Era. Did it come about through higher taxes and more govt control ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Annihilator said:

After all, that's what you said, that they couldn't sell enough ads and had to be subsidized by Russia.

When did I say that?  I mean here on the forum, not in your head. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Annihilator said:

I guess I mixed up your delusional conspiracy theories.  There are so many floating around these days, who can keep up?

I have not posted any conspiracy theories.  You are especially moronic this evening.  I mean more than usual.  Hitting the sauce?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corona Extra beats Miller Lite? Wow.

Yes, CO2 has no effect. It's not created by hydrocarbons and long wave radiation is a load of crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Annihilator said:

...And, I do not drink or use drugs.

I knew there was something seriously wrong with you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Annihilator said:

If I look back in your post history, I won't find any posts stoking the Russian collusion flames?  No, definitely not.  I'm sure you saw it as a hoax from day one.

If you need to find folks peddling that hoax, consider the FBI, the DOJ appointed special consul and, as of Friday, Trump himself.

That's right, moron. Trump ain't calling it fake news anymore.  If you want to support that idiot, you gotta watch his Twitter feed close, then put your fucking dancing shoes on and give it your best shot here.

Parroting his ever changing shit while trying to sound credible has got to be challenge for you.  How you do it without drinking is amazing. I'd need at least a shot of Tequila before posting some of the crap you put out. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, benwynn said:

If you need to find folks peddling that hoax, consider the FBI, the DOJ appointed special consul and, as of Friday, Trump himself. = Bullshit

That's right, moron. Trump ain't calling it fake news anymore.  If you want to support that idiot, you gotta watch his Twitter feed close, then put your fucking dancing shoes on and give it your best shot here.

Parroting his ever changing shit while trying to sound credible has got to be challenge for you.  How you do it without drinking is amazing. I'd need at least a shot of Tequila before posting some of the crap you put out. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, By the lee said:

 

 

It's a good video.  To me, he missed one 'elephant' in the room, pun intended.  Climate change has been used by some to push a political and economic agenda that has little to do with climate change.  I've always thought that has created a lot of unnecessary friction and damaged the larger debate.  That's added a bit to the frames he talked about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

To me, he missed one 'elephant' in the room, pun intended

Oh no not the "wealth transfer' elephant!  Is it that, or is the "political and economic agenda that has little to do with climate change" created by those who want to sell more Oil.  They fucking paid for all those deposits and exploration rights and they are going to fucking sell and burn it all if it kills us!  All of us.

More apologist shit from cmilk.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wut? Apologist? You're trolling the wrong thread, shooting brown people is up north from here at the moment. This is denier land. :D

I don't have faith in climate science because of shills like you. And the litany of failed "scientific" predictions. Mostly the shills though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, benwynn said:
10 hours ago, Annihilator said:

And, I do not drink or use drugs.

I knew there was something seriously wrong with you. 

And he's a multi millionaire who does not understand the basics of insurance or banks.

Actually I wouldn't be surprised if this specimen did not imbibe alcohol. Booze can't fuck a person's brain up -THAT- much

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Dog said:

If you need to find folks peddling that hoax, consider the FBI, the DOJ appointed special consul and, as of Friday, Trump himself. = Bullshit

"I just heard today for the first time that Obama knew about Russia a long time before the election, and he did nothing about it."

This must have to do with borscht or something. My bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Annihilator said:

Do you have any evidence of such collusion between Breitbart and the oil industry?  Or is this just another conspiracy theory? 

Here's how they work ...  the business model.

"Schweizer is both president of GAI and a Breitbart senior editor-at-large, and he and Bannon promoted the Podesta allegations last year in their roles with both. Their story provides a case study in how top Breitbart editors use the website to promote the work of a conservative group that pays them hundreds of thousands of dollars a year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Annihilator said:

 Your article just says that Bannon had a life and a job before the election, and that he dealt with the same issues during the campaign as were reported on at Breitbart.

Thats the entire idea behind hiring the right experienced people for your campaign.

But I digress, because I didnt ask you about any claims about Bannon.

 

Please show me where the oil industry is subsidizing a billion dollar news outlet because they can't find advertisers.

I said nothing about the advertisers fleeing, that's a worry of your's.  Projecting much.  But the below backs up my claim of "that pays them hundreds of thousands of dollars a year."

This guy writes Op-eds for Breitbart.  He is a professional Climate Change denier, he get's money from Exxon to write this shit.  He has a business relationship with The Heartland Institute that is funded buy the fossil fuel Energy companies.  They go to great lengths to bury the money trail, but this one is clear enough.

James Delingpole

Credentials

  • Degree in English Literature. [1]

Background

James Delingpole is an English columnist and anti-windfarm activist who formerly blogged forThe Daily Telegraph and now writes for The Spectator and Breitbart. Delingpole describes himself as a “libertarian conservative” and climate change skeptic. [2], [3][4], [5], [6]

According to Delingpole's website, www.jamesdelingpole.com, Delingpole's “dislikes” include “the 'global warming' myth” and “The European Socialist Superstate.” [7]

He was awarded the 2010 Bastiat Prize for online journalism by the free-market International Policy Network, a group that, according to public 990 forms, has received over $1 million from the secretive Donors Capital Fund, and $390,000 from oil giant ExxonMobil. [8]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone know of a good spot in Thailand to hook up with transvestites?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Annihilator said:

He believes in what he writes.

I know that concept is foreign to the fake news media, but in real journalism, you can stand behind your opinions.

Delingpole is a whore.  He writes anything for a $.  He has no credentials in science or anything related to climate or weather, he is employed for his Degree in English Literature and the rhetoric that enables him to pump out.  I hope he burns in hell.

But even if he did believe it, that ain't science, that's he's belief.  No one except you cares what he believes.  Standing behind Opinions has nothing to do with real journalism, how fucked up are you?  Journalist document what they find and report it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Walking Dude said:

Let me guess you want those under 15 years old - just looking at what you type of course. 

You must have relatives proud somehow. 

Bah By!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gosh, is it cold in here?  I seem to have lost a favorite sock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Spatial Ed said:

Anyone know of a good spot in Thailand to hook up with transvestites?

Not sure what you consider good, but we used to sit at the gogo bars in Patpong and bet on whether the hot ones had dicks. It only cost a few bhat to settle the question

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Spatial Ed said:

Bah By!

Remember the rules, dont quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Moderate said:

Not sure what you consider good, but we used to sit at the gogo bars in Patpong and bet on whether the hot ones had dicks. It only cost a few bhat to settle the question

How much did you charge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Moderate said:

Remember the rules, dont quote.

Its more of a request than a rule.  Call me a pedo, get the flick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, benwynn said:

How much did you charge?

We were betting beers, just fun times for a bunch of old expats.

You should get out of LA somtime and see the world

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

Its more of a request than a rule.  Call me a pedo, get the flick.

Youre right , my apologies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Moderate said:

Youre right , my apologies.

I'm watching your ass!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Spatial Ed said:

I'm watching your ass!

Shall I swish it for you? Theres a 15% gratuity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Moderate said:

We were betting beers, just fun times for a bunch of old expats.

You should get out of LA somtime and see the world

You should come to LA sometime and maybe you'll start getting the jokes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, benwynn said:

You should come to LA sometime and maybe you'll start getting the jokes.

Thanks but Ive been in enough 3rd world hell holes.

Hawaii works for now

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Moderate said:

Thanks but Ive been in enough 3rd world hell holes.

Hawaii works for now

I only work there. And you're being charitable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, benwynn said:

The prestige of your totally anonymous internet identify impresses me. Please embellish me with tales of your incomparable wealth. 

Its not about wealth, its more about my magnanimous attitude towards you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Moderate said:

Its not about wealth, its more about my magnanimous attitude towards you.

I feel I am not worthy, sire. May I call you sire?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, benwynn said:

I feel I am not worthy, sire. May I call you sire?

You may, but I dont consider it necessary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Moderate said:

You may, but I dont consider it necessary

I just don't want to lose the "magnanimous" thing, and make you have to pull out the thesaurus again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, benwynn said:

I just don't want to lose the "magnanimous" thing, and make you have to pull out the thesaurus again.

Its French , isnt it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Moderate said:

Its French , isnt it?

British. Peter Mark Roget was British.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just trying to figure out where CMilliken came from. It's like a voice of reason in a room akin to 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest'.

Like knowledge and reasoning has any place here. Sheesh!

Leave our insanity. Your rational arguments aren't welcome. What a party pooper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, benwynn said:

British. Peter Mark Roget was British.

Oh well, back to the tyrannosaurus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-frank-lloyd-wright-got-wrong-2016-8/#concrete-foundations-were-often-too-weak-3http://www.businessinsider.com/what-frank-lloyd-wright-got-wrong-2016-8/#concrete-foundatio

On 6/23/2017 at 1:09 PM, cmilliken said:

The 'conservative' umbrella contains many ridiculous people from true racists to homophobes to deniers in the bad meaning of that word.   Conservatives are forced to share the bus with them in the same way that liberals are forced to share the bus with lgbtqrstuvwxy-etc, no matter how weird it gets.  No, I'm not going to try and defend the undefensible.  It's foolish.

But I would make some points.  The idea that 'conservatives' don't believe in science is a popular trope but it's no more accurate than to say that liberals don't like science because they deny gender studies or genetics.  It's a broad over generalization that turns off the middle and makes them LESS interested in hearing an opposing point of view.  That's why I push back.  It's not true or helpful.

The global warming debate has been hijacked.  That's the simple truth.  What began as a 'save the future' movement became a redistribute wealth movement, then morphed into a "banana" movement - 'Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything" and finally has evolved into the shrine of the solar gods.  The environmental arguments have become reversed abortion arguments.  In the same way that there is NO liberal on earth that wants to kill babies, it's really easy to tar them with the 'right to life' arguments.  So the conservatives have taken the same approach as the liberals did on abortion - they argue a different point.  Namely, economic development.

Republicans that blame global warming on cow farts or body heat are simply idiots.  It's embarrassing that they would even say such a thing and they deserve scorn and ridicule.   Trump is an idiot.  I had hoped he would grow into the job.  I was completely wrong.  He's gotten worse.

Here the Fraunhofer report again - they update it every 4-5 months.  It's a very cool read if you're a renewable energy enthusiast.

https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/publications/studies/recent-facts-about-photovoltaics-in-germany.pdf

I appreciate your perspective.  There are conservatives that are evil and stupid.  There are also conservatives that simply have a different point of view. If you want to convince them to YOUR point of view, you have to understand their perspective and show them where they can do better.

Good luck.

Interesting read.   Esp around pp 20 discussing subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, and commenting on the "the elusive risk and burden" of nuclear and fossil fuel production on society.   

The risk of fire with dc cables from solar was interesting.   

Just like sailing in the Midwest, the best wind is on cloudy days.   Convenient for balancing energy production.   I can see more potential in the uninhabitable :lol: south with ac running every day then the north, where rural areas often use electric heat.   Cold still nights don't lend themselves to anything but my cozy wood burner.   

Finally thanks for the tip on the proposed offshore wind farm by Cleveland.   I was downtown for a wedding a couple weeks ago.    Not a big city compared to Chicago, but it's shaken off the soot of the 1970s and is doing very well while keeping its blue collar flavor.    I drove as far as the suburbs and used the rapid.   Maybe New York should take lessons.   Be interesting to see wind towers built to survive the storms,    My Grandpa had a cottage (old Sears kit house) on the shore, and hand dug a boathouse under it.   I could feel the whole structure shudder every time a wave rolled in during a storm.   The boat ramp was a maze of twisted rebar during my childhood, and the whole thing was in ruins by the time I was an adult.   I remember a fragment of hand poured concrete the size of a car literally rocking with the waves on a moderately rough day,    Someday I'll sail the shore and see what's left.    I suppose towers far from the eroding shore and breaking waves will last better, if anchored through the clay and deep to rock.  With a warming climate there is less ice to heave against them.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, i think it's one of the better summaries out there and is why I'm a big fan 'all in'.. it's going to take smarter usage of everything, including the real costs of pollution.

To me, the biggest immediate threat to the great lakes is actually the continuing impacts of fertilizer runoff that leads to algae blooms and the growing demand for fresh water.

I'll see if I can dig out the windmill plan.  And you're right - the foundations have to be very sturdy.  Cleveland and the Midwest in general is kind of weird global warming wise.  Some forecasts call for the region to become quite pleasant.  Bit hot and muggy in the summer but more mild winters.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cmilliken said:

Yea, i think it's one of the better summaries out there and is why I'm a big fan 'all in'.. it's going to take smarter usage of everything, including the real costs of pollution.

To me, the biggest immediate threat to the great lakes is actually the continuing impacts of fertilizer runoff that leads to algae blooms and the growing demand for fresh water.

I'll see if I can dig out the windmill plan.  And you're right - the foundations have to be very sturdy.  Cleveland and the Midwest in general is kind of weird global warming wise.  Some forecasts call for the region to become quite pleasant.  Bit hot and muggy in the summer but more mild winters.

 

I looked at the climate projections of 2009 before leaving a dying town and buying the business, as well as every other variable I could predict that would affect my ability to sell when I retire.   Experience repeatedly shows timing and real estate are fickle things,     I dinghy sailed twice in November (capsized once after getting used to a stub keel)  and played with the canoe in February.   

Huge agreement on the algae blooms.   Suburban yards, farmers, city runoff, etc.    Kasich's failure to take a meaningful stance was a big part of my refusal to vote for him.   He talked about it when Toledo couldn't drink, but tends to put business ahead of water.    Corn for ethanol needs a lot of fertilizer, hurting boaters twice.   A nearby lake just got an algae alert this weekend.    

Unfortunately (since the family no longer owns the land but I am likely to use the boat ramps on trips) great lake levels will drop as the ice cap stops forming.   I found a bottom friendly pocket cruiser with a four foot draft board down.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Lark said:

  I found a bottom friendly pocket cruiser with a four foot draft board down.   

Great idea!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On January 25th 2006 Al Gore proclaimed that if we didn't reduce CO2 emissions in 10 years we would be in a "true planetary emergency". The ten years expired last year but the good news is that we have been given an extension. An article in Nature gives us until 2020. We have another three years.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/world-climate-change-save-humanity-experts-global-warming-rising-sea-levels-food-a7813251.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Lark said:

I looked at the climate projections of 2009 before leaving a dying town and buying the business, as well as every other variable I could predict that would affect my ability to sell when I retire.   Experience repeatedly shows timing and real estate are fickle things,     I dinghy sailed twice in November (capsized once after getting used to a stub keel)  and played with the canoe in February.   

Huge agreement on the algae blooms.   Suburban yards, farmers, city runoff, etc.    Kasich's failure to take a meaningful stance was a big part of my refusal to vote for him.   He talked about it when Toledo couldn't drink, but tends to put business ahead of water.    Corn for ethanol needs a lot of fertilizer, hurting boaters twice.   A nearby lake just got an algae alert this weekend.    

Unfortunately (since the family no longer owns the land but I am likely to use the boat ramps on trips) great lake levels will drop as the ice cap stops forming.   I found a bottom friendly pocket cruiser with a four foot draft board down.   

:D:D:D

If you choose the right boat, you'll have a lot more places to sail.

Like probably my yard in about ............ 30 years if I'm lucky...........

-DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Saorsa said:

https://phys.org/news/2017-06-storms-massive-antarctic-sea-ice.html

It looks like it's just weather, within normal variables, but we can't rule out climate change.  Needs more study.

Thanks for the funding.

Nothing to see here.  It's obviously just about jobs for scientists.

Ocean temperature and heat content

The oceans surrounding Australia have warmed, with the greatest surface warming to the west and south of the continent. As in the atmosphere, favourable conditions for marine heatwaves around Australia can occur due to natural variability, such as the warmer Pacific Ocean waters brought to our region by La Niña. However, attribution studies have shown that background warming of the global oceans has led to a greater prevalence of marine heatwaves. In recent years, major heat events have occurred to the west of Australia, off Tasmania's east coast and, with the 2015–16 El Niño, in the Coral Sea.

2016-12_p14.png

Sea level

As oceans warm, they expand and sea level rises. Ocean warming has contributed about a third of the observed global sea-level rise of over 20 cm since the late 19th century. The remainder comes from the loss of ice from glaciers and polar ice sheets, and changes in the amount of water stored on the land. Since 1993, the rates of sea-level rise to the north, west and southeast of Australia have been higher than the global average, and rates of sea-level rise on the central east and southern coasts of the continent have been closer to the global average.

2016-13_p15.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, random said:

Nothing to see here.  It's obviously just about jobs for scientists.

Ocean temperature and heat content

The oceans surrounding Australia have warmed, with the greatest surface warming to the west and south of the continent. As in the atmosphere, favourable conditions for marine heatwaves around Australia can occur due to natural variability, such as the warmer Pacific Ocean waters brought to our region by La Niña. However, attribution studies have shown that background warming of the global oceans has led to a greater prevalence of marine heatwaves. In recent years, major heat events have occurred to the west of Australia, off Tasmania's east coast and, with the 2015–16 El Niño, in the Coral Sea.

2016-12_p14.png

Sea level

As oceans warm, they expand and sea level rises. Ocean warming has contributed about a third of the observed global sea-level rise of over 20 cm since the late 19th century. The remainder comes from the loss of ice from glaciers and polar ice sheets, and changes in the amount of water stored on the land. Since 1993, the rates of sea-level rise to the north, west and southeast of Australia have been higher than the global average, and rates of sea-level rise on the central east and southern coasts of the continent have been closer to the global average.

2016-13_p15.png

Gaining heat = Albedo.

I've told you that before.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Saorsa said:

Gaining heat = Albedo.

I've told you that before.

 

Yes you have, you keep repeating that against all scientific advice.  Odd hey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, My name is Legion said:

Do you get paid for the click bait?

So, if a story doesn't comport with your viewpoint, it must either be "fake news" or "clickbait".

Gotcha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bus Driver said:

They are Republicans in the south and flatlands,    Blame sinners drawing gods wrath on America.   Blame men laying with men.  Blame muslims, science believers, and Jesus killing Jews.  Democrats all.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would explain why the Arctic ice cap still exists and why I'm still shoveling so much "increasingly rare" snow. Seriously though, there's a limit to how long you can pull this shit and, as evidenced by the recent acknowledgement by alarmist scientists and IPCC that the models run hot, it seems they see the writing on the wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now